City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the July 7th, 2026 city council meeting to order. Let the record reflect that all council members are present tonight. Votes this evening will be recorded using the city's electronic voting system. Madam city clerk, have there been, have we received any requests to speak during

I have not received any in-person comments for a closed session, and we have not received any online comments for closed session either. Thank you.

At this time, the city council will recess to closed session for the purpose of conducting regular city business. At this time, the City Council will convene to consider public matters. If you wish to speak, Please fill out a blue speaker card and it will be provided to the city clerk. If you wish to submit any written materials, please provide those to the city clerk. They will be distributed to the city council. As required by state law, when speaking on an item listed on the agenda, limit your comments to the subject of that item. If you wish to speak on a subject not listed on the agenda, you may speak under the public comment portion of the meeting. Please address your comments to the city council staff only will respond to questions from the City Council, not from the public speakers. Finally, tonight we have a very busy agenda with a number of items which we have dozens of requests to speak. These items include the appeal hearing, which resulted from the Planning Commission hearing on the item running past midnight. We welcome the public's input on all matters and we want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to express their opinion on these items at a reasonable hour and do not want potential speakers to go home and forfeit the right to speak due to the length of the meeting. We also want to ensure that we have an equal right to speak without disruption. To ensure that all who wish to speak have an equal opportunity, both state and local laws include rules regarding disrupting meetings. As required by the Brown Act and the Lake Forest Municipal Code, those in attendance at this hearing are required to maintain decorum and not permitted to disrupt the meeting. This means that if you are permitted to speak when your name is called, you must refrain from any actions that could disrupt the meeting, including loud or boisterous language, refusing to be seated or keep quiet when asked, or otherwise preventing the meeting from continuing in an orderly fashion. In the event of a disruption, I will first give a verbal warning to those causing the disruption. If the behavior does not stop after the warning, that person will be removed from the council chambers to allow the meeting to proceed. This applies to those attending via teleconference as well. Again, these rules are intended to ensure all who speak have an equal opportunity to do so. We ask that you respect everyone's desire to be heard. Finally, Due to the number of items on the agenda and the large number of requests to speak on these items, we will limit public comment on all items tonight to one minute per speaker per item and two minutes per speaker per item for those who need a translator. Again, we will ensure you have an opportunity to speak on items of interest with a reasonable time. We will now move on to the invocation. Tonight's invocation will be provided by Annie Sheffield of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints.

Oh, God, our Heavenly Father, we pray today for wisdom and strength in this meeting. We are grateful for our community and for those who serve here, and we're grateful for all the volunteers and the civil servants who support us. We're grateful for this city, and we pray that we can find resolution in issues that are discussed tonight that bring peace to our community. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you. We'll move on to the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country will be led by Brownie Troop 2519.

We are the Girl Scout Troop of 2519.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please put your right hand over your heart. Ready, begin. I pledge 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.

Okay, we'll now move on to the closed session report. Mr. City Attorney, are there any reportable items for closed session?

Thank you, Mayor. There's no action report this evening from closed session.

Thank you. We'll now move on to public comment. If you would like to make a comment, please fill out a blue speaker card and give it to the City Clerk. Madam City Clerk, are there any requests to speak on this item?

There are none, Mayor.

Thank you. We'll move on to item number four. Madam City Clerk, please read the title to item number four.

The title of item number four is the recognition of volunteers in parks program participants.

Madam City Manager, please introduce this item.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to invite Peggy Samantha, our management assistant from our Public Works Department, to provide a presentation.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Pecaino and City Council members. Tonight, the City Council is recognizing the volunteers in parks program participants. participants for 2526 and celebrating the 5th anniversary of the IP program we're honoring the dedicated residents who keep our 31 Park safe and beautiful marking a fantastic milestone for this vital community driven initiative. Park inspection surveys are submitted quarterly via mobile devices by 19 engaged volunteers with 2 new additions for 2526. The dedicated team includes three husband and wife teams and the members have committed to continue service to 2627 to ensure consistent park coverage and avoid disruptions. The program maintains an active list of interested residents. This acts as a ready reserved pool allowing staff to rapidly fill inspection positions as parks become available. The VIP program continues to be highly successful in providing the additional eyes and ears necessary to enhance the safety, cleanliness, and overall quality of our parks. Volunteer observations directly contributed to a measurable increase in maintenance efficiency. We deeply value the time, commitment, and dedication of our volunteers. Their contributions have made a meaningful difference in maintaining the high standards of our park system. As a gesture of appreciation, we would like to recognize and honor their service to the community. The following VIP participants could not attend tonight's meeting. Sean Fletcher, David Frankeney, Diane Hanks, Jean Kula, Elle Phillips, and Hui Vong. The volunteers and participants who are here this evening, and we would like to invite them up to the podium for their certificate and a group photo with the City Council are David Antonisi, Debbie Antonisi. Derek Barraza. Elizabeth Fogarty. Loretta Heron. Rich Hopson. I think he kind of snuck out. Anil Patel. Alan Phillips. Sue Reese. Mark Ryan. Suzanne Ryan. Alexis Veal. And John Worth. This concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right, ready? And three, two, one. Three, two, one. And three, two, one.

I'd just like to put an exclamation point on the presentation we just witnessed, and I mentioned this to the folks at our appreciation dinner beforehand, is that these folks have the heart of a volunteer, and I resonate really strong with that, and we have a lot of great volunteers here in the city of Lake Forest. those of you who have that heart of a volunteer of serving your community and providing a benefit to in this case our parks and keeping those amenities with eyes and ears and hands on them to you know protect and encourage others to use those facilities and keep them in a manner that we appreciate so much so I just wanted to put a little exclamation point on the fact that the volunteers, that these people and the hours they put in is something that we appreciate and we honor tonight. So thank you again.

Okay, so now we're going to go to public comment. Let me just remind the residents that public comment is for something that is not on the agenda. Madam City Clerk, have we had any requests to speak?

We have Mayor and our first public commenter is Anthony Ford.

I have a copy of my statement if you guys would like it first before I start. No? All right. Good evening, City Council. My name is Anthony Ford. Since I was four, I've had the utmost pleasure to grow up in Lake Forest. We are a city of hardworking, law-abiding citizens who deserve the highest level of privacy and respect. However, even in our safe town, we have come face-to-face with a national issue. Automated license plate readers, ALPR, operated by private companies, particularly by Flock Safety. Perhaps you've noticed them on poles and attached to streetlights. Community mapping on dflock.org appears to identify roughly 75 Flock cameras in Lake Forest. according to the city of Camp Bell, California, also using flock safety. Each one of these cameras costs $250 to install and then $2,500 per camera per year for their subscription. Using that data on that pricing, our 75 camera deployment costs about $187,000 per year for the mass.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next public commenter is Mark Hermanson.

Looks like we're doing a little shorter time tonight, so I'm going to skip a lot. Every council we have, council meeting we have, somebody questions the integrity of this council. And the question I have is the ones that like to yell and scream, can I assume that since we have three voting coming up, we'll see your name running for council this month or this year? Or we have nine commissioner slots, will we see your names on there? I'm guessing probably not. One of the things I want to bring up is our mayor was recently accosted at a park. And I spoke out very heavily against it because it went on the Facebook page of a guy named Josephus Kay, who has now been convicted of numerous things involving this city. And some of the people who like to yell were involved with him. I would encourage everyone to really go out and look up what happened with that because it was disgusting and it should never happen in our city. So again, if you want to yell and scream, please. There's three slots available this year. I hope to see your name on a city council running for that. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Next, we'll have a commenter is Tracy Beam.

Hi, Council. Unlike the other person, I would be happy to have a camera by our house. In fact, that's what I'm here for. I'd like to have some cameras put on Orange Street between Muirlands and Whistler. We have a bad graffiti issue there. And I know I contact the city frequently. Probably every 10 to 14 days, we have to have the city come out and cover over that graffiti. And I'm thinking, if we had cameras on the lights, Happens at night. You only need them on at night just to catch these cockroaches who keep doing it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next public commenter is Bob Holtzclaw.

Bob Holsklow, resident of Lake Forest. Just want to go over a few things. The parade was a great success, lots of variety, and I wish more animals were on it. My six-year-old grandson says Servo's hat keeps falling off. I guess he has to get a smaller head. So the Sun and Sail Club put on a great fireworks show, and all the Lake Forest residents, even the non-members, were outside and watched the free show, and it was a great success. One last thing is... About two weeks ago, Councilman Servo and everybody else in the club here said about the regulations for e-bikes. And I know you got some suggestions about...

Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments. Your comments are concluded.

Our next public commenter is Eileen McGurvy.

Hello, gentlemen, ladies. First of all, Deborah Rose, you were the greatest hit in my section of the parade, and I commend you for your hard work, and I think the community knows how hard you're working. So I want to make a special point to salute you on that one. What I'm here for is what I'm always here for, the Serrano Park. Since I spoke here last, which was about six months ago, we have had four very serious fires in the homes adjacent to my property. We're not talking a mile away. We're talking stone's throw away. It's going to be that park, and it's going to happen. Today, I find out that it is postponed yet again because we are waiting for a federal grant. Mr. Voigt, you look me in the eye.

Thank you for your comments. Ma'am, your comments are concluded. Thank you.

And our last public commenter in person is Connie, Connie. All right. So now we are going to go to any general public comment that we may have online, and I'm going to turn it over to assistant city clerk bolts.

And our next commenter is Randy Johnson.

The fantastic council. This is Randy Johnson. I'll cut straight to the chase. I spoke at the last meeting about the fireworks problem. We had a hell of a problem again this last 4th of July. Hundreds of skyrockets fired into the air around El Toro and New Orleans, that entire area. No enforcement whatsoever. You want to give yourself a big pay raise tonight, council? I mean a big pay raise? Then start doing your job. Miss Rose, You are mandated under state law to enforce the municipal code. You do your job, too. We gave you a $37,000 compensation boost last meeting. Do your job and enforce the fire work ordinance. And if you have to, then pass one of these social, whatever it's called, some of these other cities are doing it, social host. in order to use the drones and find out where these fireworks are coming from. Enforce the law. We're tired of this crap.

Thank you for your comments.

And that is it for general public comment.

Thank you. We'll move on to the consent calendar. All matters listed under the City Council consent calendars are considered routine and will be enacted by one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council or staff request items be removed from the consent calendars for separate action. Has there been any requests to remove an item from the consent calendars?

There have been none, Mayor.

I'll move consent calendar.

Second.

Let's vote.

And that motion passes four zero with council member you not voting.

Okay. Do we have any requests to speak on this?

Uh, we do not. Yeah.

Alrighty. Then we'll move on to public hearings. We'll now move on to public hearing item number nine. I would like to open the public hearing. Madam city clerk, please read the title to item number nine.

Thank you, Mayor. The title of item number nine is the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 in Certification of Environmental Impact Report, SCH2024030755, for demolition of an existing building and construction of a new 165,803 square foot industrial building located at 26200 Enterprise Way.

Thank you. Madam City Manager, please introduce this item.

Thank you, Mayor. At this point, there is no staff presentation. We will have the staff presentation after we hear from you and we hear from the City Attorney.

Okay. Oh, I forgot. I forgot. Okay, so this is a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Site Development Permit, or SDP, approving the demolition of an existing office and industrial building and construction of a 35-foot wall, 165,800 square foot tilt-up industrial building. This hearing will be conducted in pursuant to sections 2.04.100 through 2.04.130 of the Lake Forest Municipal Code. The City Council's role is to review the Planning Commission's decision de novo, meaning at the end of the public hearing the Council may take any action on the SDP application as if the application were being heard for the first time. The city council has reviewed all submitted evidence and is prepared to listen to all evidence and testimony presented during this hearing and to render an impartial judgment based on the evidence before us at this appeal. To ensure an impartial hearing, the council members are required to disclose the details of any contact or communications related to the appeal and that were made prior to this hearing. The city attorney will assist the council in this disclosure process.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. You noted in that statement twice the word impartiality. The council usually sits in a legislative capacity. This evening, during this hearing, you're sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. That's a fancy way of saying that you're required to approach this hearing as an impartial decision-making body with pure objectivity. You can only make your decision based on facts and information presented as part of this hearing, either in the packet or during the verbal presentations or public comments. To ensure that any information gleaned from prior conversations is brought into the hearing, we engage in a process of disclosing any ex parte contacts. That's a Latin term for contacts outside of the hearing. So at this time, I'll go one by one through each council member and ask if you've had any ex parte contacts with anybody, especially the applicant or the appellant, the nature of those contacts. And then I'll also ask if you're willing and able to make your decision based on the information and facts presented as part of the public hearing. So we'll start at the end of the dais with Council Tettemer.

Yeah, I have not spoken with the applicant or met with the applicant and had any conversations separately. Thank you very much.

Council Boyce.

Yes, I met with a group of the homeowners at Starbucks in Foothill Ranch, Portola. and heard their concerns and then I've read over the emails that have come to us and I'm looking at the evidence that's before us in the item agenda report and I'll make a fair and impartial judgment on the concerns that you guys have and what the city has stated in their information in the report. Thank you.

I have not spoken with either side.

And Mayor Pro Tem Cervo?

I have had no conversations with the applicant or the appellant and am willing and able to render an impartial judgment tonight.

Thank you.

Are we going to wait for...

When he returns, we can have him provide any expertise.

The appeal hearing will proceed as follows. City staff will first present the staff report. Representatives for the applicant will then present the reasons for their application and evidence not previously submitted. A representative for the appellant will then present the reasons for their appeal and any evidence. Members of the City Council may then ask questions of either of the representatives of the applicant or city staff. Members of the public will then have an opportunity to comment on the item. To ensure that all who wish to speak have an equal opportunity, both state and local law include rules reference disrupting meetings. As required by the Brown Act and the Lake Forest Municipal Code, those in attendance at this hearing are required to maintain decorum and not permitted to disrupt the meeting. This means that you are permitted to speak when your name is called. You must refrain from any actions that could disrupt the meeting, including loud or boisterous language, refusing to be seated or keep quiet when asked, or otherwise preventing the hearing from continuing in an orderly fashion. In the event of a disruption, I will first give a verbal warning to those causing the disruption. If the behavior does not stop after the warning, the person will be removed from the council chambers to allow the meeting to proceed. This applies to those attended via teleconference as well. Again, these rules are intended to ensure that all who wish to speak have an equal opportunity to do so. We ask that you respect everyone's desire to be heard. As I noted at the beginning of the meeting, in order to ensure that everyone who wants to speak a public comment has the opportunity to do so, the time limit per speaker will be set at one minute. Anyone who needs a translator will be given two minutes. Speaking time may not be transferred to another speaker. We are now ready to proceed in this matter, so I will open the public hearing. I already opened it, so I don't need to gavel again. I already opened it. I don't need to gavel again.

Mr. Mayor, if we can just conclude the ex parte contact disclosure at this point with Council Member Yu.

I met with applicant Chris Sanford more than a year ago and I have spoken with the applicant's consultant on multiple occasions. In each of these conversations, the applicant has planned their project and expressed their opinion regarding what is a good fee for the area. This conversation is very broad. I did not go into any detail regarding the project. I have also met residents of Weather Meadows on multiple occasions. Similarly, they expressed their opinion regarding why the project is not a good fit for the area. I'm prepared to make my decision tonight based on the information and facts presented as part of this hearing and I will not rely on the information presented during my conversation. Thank you. Okay.

Mr. Mayor, I would like to introduce our speaker. We will start with a presentation by Jennifer Mancer, our senior planner, and then she will be followed by our special counsel, Alicia Winterswick, as well. Okay.

Good evening, Mayor Piceno and City Council members. This item before you tonight is the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Site Development Permit and Related Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new industrial building on Enterprise Way. The project site is located in an existing industrial area in the Pacific Commerce Center planned community, and I'm going to provide just a brief history about 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 over the city of Lake Forest. Due to safety concerns and extreme noise levels, the land directly under the flight path, shown on yellow on the 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 includes three different industrial zoning districts and an open space zoning 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 this 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 area, uh, development approved in this area was the Meadows Residential Community, which I'll just refer to as the Meadows, which is just northeast of the project site. In 2020, the City of Lake Forest 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 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. The 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 at the site. The site currently has a 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. A specific tenant has not been identified for this project, which is typical for this type of development. Vehicular access to the project site would continue to be provided via the 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 and 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 the fire sprinkler equipment. Landscaping and mature trees are present around the perimeter of the site. The project proposes to maintain this 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 the screen. New landscaping is also proposed in the landscape area between the driveways along Enterprise Way and around the proposed building. The proposed 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, which would be painted to match the building, are not readily visible from the surrounding streets nor the residential properties. The project also includes five offsite intersection improvements. The location of these 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 in the area. A condition of approval has been recommended requiring the improvements to be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building. The project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the general plan light industrial use designation and the goals and policies in the general plan. The site's light industrial zoning, which is intended to provide for a broad range of industrial uses, will be met as 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 city zoning code. including the facility design requirements, which include transportation demand strategies. These requirements include carpool and vanpool parking stalls, bicycle parking, shower 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 OCFA, provide a preliminary review of these plans. A full review of the project's compliance with the state building code will occur during the review of the plans for building permit issuance. OCFA has recommended several conditions 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 an 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 industrial, 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 on the project 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 residents. As I mentioned, the project is in compliance with all zoning code requirements and there is no minimum building setback required from adjacent properties. However, the proposed building would provide a setback of approximately 150 to 160 feet from the residential property lines. Furthermore, the project is designed so the truck door docks and loading area of the proposed building are oriented to the southwest, are located over 200 feet away from the nearest residential property line, and would not be readily visible from the residences. Lastly, the EIR for this project, which include technical studies and analysis, 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 EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. The purpose of an 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 a 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 City Council 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 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 DIR. 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 a less than significant level 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 the primary metric used to evaluate transportation impacts in CEQA. VMT looks at the impacts to the regional roadway network. The project's VMT exceeds the city's thresholds primarily due to the nature of employment uses and associated employment trip generation. The VMT analysis does not take into consideration the previous VMT generated by the existing building because the building is currently vacant. However, it should be noted that the existing building, when occupied, would potentially generate more employees than the proposed building. Mitigation measures were added to this project to reduce VMT, including the installation of new bicycle lanes on Commerce Center Drive that would connect the proposed project site to the 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 the greenhouse 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 purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The EIR analyzed the project's impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and determined that the emissions were below the thresholds. However, because the project will 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 a significant unavoidable impact, the City Council must consider special findings that document the lead agency's conclusions regarding each impact and the feasibility of mitigation. Additionally, the City Council would need 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 past 15 years, the city has approved five EIRs, all of which have included a statement of overriding considerations, as shown on the table. On June 4th, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this SDP and the corresponding final EIR. During the meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft five new conditions that were verbally agreed to by the applicant. Generally, these conditions include the creation of a quiet zone, so no backup alarms or idling, in the driveway adjacent to the meadows during nighttime hours, Commercial truck traffic would be prohibited from the shared drive aisle at the north corner of the property. Restriction of idling to five minutes or less. Commercial truck traffic on the project site shall not exceed 15 trucks per hour during daytime hours and four trucks per hour during nighttime hours. And the applicant must obtain approval of sign plans related to these conditions. The purpose of these new conditions of approval are to better ensure the peace and tranquility of the surrounding residential uses. These new conditions of approval were not mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts. A little after midnight on June 5th, 2026, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt the two staff recommended resolutions resulting in the certification of the final EIR and approval of the SDP with the new conditions and revised findings. ON JUNE 18, 2026, A TIMELY WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL WAS FILED BY DOUGLAS CARSONS ON BEHALF OF WE THE MEADOWS. NEXT, I'M GOING TO HAVE THE CITY'S CEQA ATTORNEY, ALICIA WINTERSWEIK, PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEAL.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Alicia Wintersweig with Best Best and Krieger here tonight to go over with you a few slides on the appeal that was filed by Mr. Carstens of the Law Office of Carstens, Black and Mintier. with respect to the planning commission's approval so as mayor pequeno mentioned at the outset tonight's hearing is a de novo hearing which means that you get to consider all of the evidence afresh and anew you get to look at what's in your packet hear the testimony tonight and base your decision on everything that you have reviewed you can take any action that the Planning Commission could have taken in the first instance with respect to the actual application that's before you. So you will have three specific tasks tonight. First is to act on the appeal, whether that's uphold the appeal, or deny the appeal. Then you will act on the CEQA resolution either to approve the resolution in the form that staff has presented it to you tonight in your packet or with modifications. And then your third action item will be to act on the Site Development Permit. Again, that Site Development Permit action can be for approval, conditional approval or denial. Now, all of this is important just to make abundantly clear in the record that you have the ability to look at each of the facts and ask questions that you believe are relevant to your decision-making tonight. As the reviewing body, you get to consider whether or not you have enough information before you tonight. If you get to a point in deliberations or after hearing testimony, you feel like the item would need to be continued that is within your purview to do so. So that is an option that is before you tonight. A hearing de novo does completely nullify the planning commission's decision and your decision then takes its place as the final decision with respect to the EIR and the SDP. This is all spelled out in the municipal code. So with that, we would like to identify for you the issues that were raised in the appeal filed by Mr. Carstens. They are here on your screen. We have some responses to each of those topical areas. They are fully laid out in your staff report. But to highlight a couple of salient points on air quality, we wanted to point your attention to places in the draft EIR or the final EIR where information specifically addresses a key component of the argument that appellants include in their notice of appeal. So with respect to the allegation that the EIR fails to recognize state and national ambient air quality standards as a threshold of significance, that's just incorrect. A summary of the actual standards that were used in the analysis can be found in the draft EIR on the pages listed on your screen. To the extent that you would like to go and reference those as we're going through deliberations, you will have that information before you to go and check that out. same with respect to quantifying peak one hour construction emissions this is a comment that we saw on the draft dir it was fully responded to in the final environmental impact report the bottom line is that the south coast air quality management district guidance and the standard modeling practices do not require measuring significance of impacts based on a one hour threshold instead the emissions are based on daily emissions of a particular pollutant that occur during the construction period for the project With respect to formation of secondary pollutants. This is a comment that we saw raised repeatedly during the Planning Commission meeting and then following the Planning Commission meeting leading up to the City Council meeting and essentially the argument is that The EIR failed to analyze what happens when NOx and VOCs are converted into PM10. These criteria pollutants are changing. What are the impacts of those changes on the environment? SEA QMD currently does not recommend analysis of secondary formation of NOx and BOCs in the context of a draft EIR because doing so is very highly variable and speculative. It doesn't actually result in reliable data that we can generalize for purposes of determining whether an effect would have a health impact or would have some other impact on air quality. And then the same with respect to NOx standards during construction. It's not a one-hour standard. It is a daily standard that's required by our local AQMD. Moving along to greenhouse gas emissions, a couple of citations for you with respect to some of the salient points raised on GHG in the event that you want to refer back to those during deliberations. One, oh, we got that point. On the final bullet point that the EIR fails to incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHGs, you'll hear a bit about this tonight on the process that staff went through to evaluate CAPCOA's recommended mitigation measures for reduction of GHGs and evaluating the The feasibility of each of those measures, some measures are voluntary. It's impossible to force individuals, for example, to ride a bus as opposed to drive a car if they're going to and from work. That is something that an employer can encourage, but we cannot mandate it. And so the problem or the tension that we see with CEQA mitigation is mitigation by law has to be enforceable. It has to be measurable. We have to be able to track it. Something that's voluntary is not measurable. It's not enforceable because it's voluntary. You could choose whether or not to do it. So to the extent that there's a mitigation measure identified in some of the comments where folks say, well, hey, why aren't you requiring bus passes or why aren't you requiring some of these other voluntary types of measures, it is because they are not enforceable mitigation measures in the eyes of CEQA. um okay moving right along um to traffic and vmt um you will hear a lot about traffic in vmt tonight as jennifer mentioned vmt is our one of our significant and unavoidable impacts for this project um the The EIR did identify feasible mitigation to reduce impacts. Unfortunately, the reduction isn't enough to get us to below a level of significance, but under CEQA case law, it is clear that we have this obligation to reduce to the maximum extent feasible and what is in the environmental impact report gets us as far as we could feasibly get with measurable and enforceable mitigation. Moving right along on to impacts that the project may have on nearby communities. I know that you each have reviewed thoroughly the staff report as well as the planning commission meeting and testimony that's been submitted. So you're well aware of the concerns that the neighbors have presented with respect to impacts on their living environment, on their health, on their families. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CROSS REFERENCE WHERE IT IS THAT STAFF BELIEVES THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, WHEN WE SAY THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN FULLY ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT OR FINAL EIR, HERE ARE THE HIGH POINTS FOR YOU IN GREEN WITH A PAGE CITATION SO THAT YOU CAN FLIP IN THE EVENT THAT YOU WANT TO OR NEED TO FLIP THERE DURING THE APPEAL HEARING. Moving right along to our next slide on a noise pollution Same same thing here in terms of outline on references, but with respect to the first bullet point under noise pollution We wanted to point out that no noise is impact mitigation measures were proposed for the project. So consistency with existing regulatory requirements kept the noise impact to a less than significant level based on the noise study that was done for both the construction and operational periods for the project. So to the extent that the comments raise concerns about noise mitigation measures not being sufficiently enforceable, there just are no noise mitigation measures. We have existing regulatory requirements that carry the force of local code and code enforcement officers have the ability to enforce those codes 365 days a year. Okay, moving right along on to cumulative impacts. Again, references here for your use if needed. One big issue that we've heard a lot about is that the tenant for this building is unknown. This is a speculative property. It's a spec industrial building where a developer comes in, builds the shell, tries to attract the users to come and fill the space. We don't know who those users might be at this particular point in time. So as a result, the EIR does a worst-case analysis based on the types of uses that are permitted within the zone. And according to state CEQA guidelines section 15126 and 15144, CEQA analysis in this type of scenario where you have an unknown tenant is to be based on what is reasonably foreseeable, not based on speculation, not based on whatever might possibly go in this space. We have to have something that's reasonable based on fact. to help guide the analysis of impacts. And so here, in particular, what the EIR focused on in terms of potential uses is three specific categories. So we focused on a manufacturing use, we focused on a warehousing use, and we focused on general office. And based on the square footages of what we think are approximations of how the space will be demised, those particular uses were split up. And impacts were analyzed based on those types of uses because they are permitted uses in this space. WHAT ALSO INFORMED THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE EIR WITH RESPECT TO THE TYPE OF USE OR THE TYPE OF TENANT THAT MIGHT GO HERE IS THE TENANT THAT'S PRESENTLY IN PLACE. AND SO WE LOOKED AT THE GENERAL SURROUNDING AREA AND MADE REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON FACT AS TO THE TYPE OF USER THAT might ultimately fill the space. And based on those assumptions, then did a worst case analysis of what those types of uses might generate in terms of impacts. So if you have questions about that as we go through the evening, I'm sure you will. We will be happy to answer those questions in more detail, but just to give you a little overview there, that's how we dealt with the fact that this is a spec building. These are just a couple of citations that we wanted to provide to the city council with respect to alternatives and statements of overriding considerations. So alternatives and statement of overriding considerations are two unique characteristics of environmental impact reports. EIRs are the heftiest disclosure document under CEQA. We have an obligation to look at a reasonable range of alternatives. You do not have to look at every permutation of a project. You do not have to look at every possible outcome um of land uses that might be permitted on the site you are to look at what is a reasonable range there's no ironclad rule as to what establishes a reasonable range um but generally speaking if you're looking at you know setting no no project alternative aside if you're looking at a few alternatives that might reduce environmental significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that were identified in the eir you will have satisfied your obligation under the law. The EIR that's presented to you does just that. And you do have a reasonable range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR. You may hear some testimony or you may have read some of the comments which suggest that you should be looking at a totally different use for the property, convert it to residential, make it all office, make it open space. While all of those things would be feasible, If they're not part of what is a reasonable range in terms of what the applicant has asked for, what are land use permits, then it is within your purview to say that the range that is before you is sufficient and reasonable and you can move forward on that basis. Similarly, you will have seen comments most recently from Thursday and Friday of last week about how the council is precluded excuse me, from making a statement of overriding considerations here unless you expand the number of alternatives in your EIR. That's not the law. The law doesn't tie together the number of alternatives and your statement of overrides. Instead, the statement of overriding considerations is a separate, separate determination that you are getting to make from a policy perspective. And that policy balance determination you're making is one where you're saying, okay, I've reviewed the EIR, I've reviewed the comments, I've reviewed the technical information, I understand the conclusions with respect to significance of the environmental impacts. But I also have all of these benefits that the project's going to bring to our community, and I have to weigh them. And I have to decide as an individual independent arbiter whether the benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects or whether it flips the other way. and where the impacts of the project outweigh the benefits that it would bring. So the only way that you can approve the project tonight is if you adopt a statement of overriding considerations. The statement of overriding considerations is essential in order to move forward because we do have two significant and unavoidable impacts. A couple of additional references here with respect to proposed mitigation measures. Jennifer did mention to you in her presentation that the conditions of approval that were added at the end of the Planning Commission meeting were conditions of approval that were intended to address peace and tranquility issues that the Planning Commission heard from the public. They heard the comments and the Planning Commission attempted to respond to those comments by further restricting the project. Those conditions are not mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report. Okay, next slide. You will hear quite a bit about, we can go one more. Thank you, Jennifer. You'll hear quite a bit about the number of dock doors and how many dock doors does this site plan have. The site plan has 23 dock doors. The EIR project description includes 23 dock doors. 23 dock doors runs consistently through every technical report as part of the project description. Some of the comments have identified areas where the technical analysis, the technical reports, identify assumptions that were made, for example, in the traffic report that would inform the noise report. So what do I mean by this? So if the traffic report says, for example, that the a.m. and p.m. peak hour would generate a maximum of 15 trucks per hour, the assumption is in the noise study that 15 trucks per hour would be coming to the loading docks. So the noise study looked at assumptions made in the traffic study and carried those forward into the analysis. But then there is the entirety of the report that looks at the cumulative effect of not only the trucks coming in and out of the site, but noise that's generated by you know, doors opening and shutting, HVAC systems, other traffic noise on surrounding roadways. So there are other inputs that go into generating what the total volume of noise would be during both the construction and the operational period. So it's essential to stay focused on the fact that there are 23 dock doors. OPERATIONALLY, IT'S MOST LIKELY THAT NOT ALL 23 DOCK DOORS WILL BE FILLED EVERY HOUR WITH TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT. ACCORDING TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED, THAT CONDITION OF APPROVAL, WHICH HAS NO BEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, SAYS YOU GET 15 TRUCKS PER HOUR COMING IN AND OUT. the the project description is stable it is finite and it is consistent across all of the reports um okay again here um i'm gonna leave this up you will um Jennifer mentioned that as of last Thursday going through the weekend up until 5 p.m. Today we received several more pieces of written correspondence written comments on the draft dir on the appeal and on the project all of those have been presented to the council and I'm not going to read all of them back to you tonight, but there are a couple of points that we wanted to highlight for you in the event that you had questions about these as you were reviewing. So we just went through the... THE DOCTOR'S ISSUE. SEVERAL COMMENTERS RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AGENDA'S AVAILABILITY FOR TONIGHT AND WHETHER THIS HEARING TONIGHT SHOULD GO FORWARD AT ALL IN LIGHT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE BROWN ACT. SO JUST IN RESPONSE TO THOSE GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT TONIGHT'S MEETING, POSTING THE AGENDA MATERIALS ON JULY 3rd WHICH IS THE DATE WHEN THESE MATERIALS WERE POSTED COMPLIES WITH THE BROWN ACT. because the materials were available to both the public and the decision makers more than 72 hours in advance of this meeting. So that satisfies the government code's requirements with respect to that particular piece of the puzzle. A continuance tonight is not required because the agenda materials were posted timely and in accordance with the government code. In situations like these where an agency allows an appeal of an approval from an inferior decision-making body, here it was the planning commission, to a higher decision-making body, yourselves as the city council, a notice of determination or exemption that's filed after the planning commission meeting has no legal effect if the appeal is filed. So you will have seen some comments saying, well, hey, there's confusion in the record because after the planning commission made its determination, the city filed a notice of determination with the state clearing house and the county clerk. In fact, we're legally required to do that. The city has to, within five working days after the approval, file those notices in those ways. Within five days, the city did file that notice. The appeal came several days after the expiration of that five working day period. So in this type of situation, when an appeal is filed, the NOD is just nullified. If there is an approval tonight, whatever action actually happens tonight, there will be a notice that is filed to memorialize your determination. Okay, with respect to the conditions of approval that were added at the Planning Commission meeting, there was some concern about whether there were Brown Act violations in connection with with that activity those conditions of approval that were added at the planning commission meeting were added in direct response to comments and direction that were provided by the planning commission at the june 5th 2026 public hearing the public was involved in that hearing did help to shape those conditions of approval and the thinking behind them THERE WAS NO BASIS TO REOPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING ONCE IT HAD BEEN CLOSED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO GO BACK AND MEMORIALIZE THEM THAT NIGHT BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE CAPTURED THEIR INTENT HOLY. SO STAFF DID THAT AND A COMPARISON OF THE ADOPTED CONDITIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTED CONDITIONS AGAINST THE HEARING TRANSCRIPT FROM THAT NIGHT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CONDITIONS TRACK EXACTLY WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTION WAS. THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, THE CONDITIONS WERE PROPERLY INCORPORATED INTO THE ACTION AND ARE PROPERLY BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. Okay. Let's see here. A couple more quick points. There were several questions raised at the Planning Commission meeting and in comments leading up today about truck routes. What ways will these trucks move on streets through the City of Lake Forest? Project truck trips can utilize Interstate 5, Interstate 405. State Route 241 bake Parkway Lake Forest Drive dimension Drive and Commerce Center Drive Just like other trucks currently traverse those roadways and highways throughout our city These roadways are considered acceptable designated routes for trucks and they can safely move move in these ways There were a couple of questions raised in comment letters submitted since Thursday about emergency operations and evacuations in the event of the need for emergency evacuation as a result of some occurrence at the project site. while the city doesn't have currently designate a specific evacuation route it does have an emergency operations plan and the city would implement that emergency operations plan to notify residents and business owners of evacuation orders in affected areas to the extent that that became necessary And this is actually an issue that is addressed in the final EIR in response to comment O-1-10. Okay. I think I have one. No, that's it. So I'm going to kick it back to Jennifer.

As I previously mentioned, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval to the STP resolution that generally restricts commercial truck traffic on the project site to a maximum of 15 trucks per hour during daytime hours and four trucks per hour during nighttime hours. This condition was based on the truck trip assumptions used in the final EIR. Staff is recommending revising this condition and adding two conditions to provide more clarity and to strengthen the enforceability of this condition. Generally, the new recommended conditions will clarify that the condition refers to truck trips, which is a truck either entering or exiting, requires a property owner to install and maintain a security camera system that provides the date and time of each truck arrival and departure. requires the property owner to retain a third party to verify monitoring data and submit quarterly reports to the city and provides that each truck in excess of the number of trucks allowed would constitute a separate violation subject to the administrative penalty in accordance with the city's code the new staff recommended conditions of approval are included as conditions 75 89 and 90 in the draft city council resolution related to the sdp STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT BY ADOPTING TWO RESOLUTIONS. THE FIRST RESOLUTION IS RELATED TO THE EIR AND INCLUDES THE ADOPTION OF THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, THE ADOPTION OF A 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 recommended conditions of approval and the City Council has received written comments from the public on the project and some of these comments were provided to you with the agenda report and The rest of the comments have been provided to you at the dais tonight representatives of the applicant sorry, representatives of the applicant for this project are here tonight and they have prepared a brief presentation. The appellant will also have five minutes to present their appeal. If you have any questions, as always, we have planning staff available. We have the city CEQA attorney, the city attorney, a representative from Orange County Fire Authority, and the EIR project manager from LSA. And that concludes our presentation. Thank you.

Okay, so now the representatives for the applicant may now present the reasons for their application and any additional evidence.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council, City staff, and members of the public. My name is Chris Sanford. I'm co-head of U.S. Development for MARC Logistics, and I'm here tonight representing IPT Enterprise Business Center. First, I want to thank City Council for the opportunity to be here this evening. I also want to thank City staff, Planning Commission, and the many members of the public who have participated in this process over the years. This project received a unanimous 5-0 approval from Planning Commission after a lengthy hearing, substantial public testimony, and significant discussion around traffic, noise, operations, and residential compatibility. Following that hearing, we also agreed to several additional conditions of approval to further address the concerns that were raised, and Jennifer and Alicia did a great job elaborating on those as well. This project has been in the process for more than five years. We acquired the site in 2021 and have worked through the pre-application review, multiple submittals, traffic and noise studies, an M&D process, full EIR process, public outreach, community meetings, and ultimately the planning commission hearing. So while this is an appeal hearing tonight, I think it's important to start with a broader context. This is not a new concept being brought forward quickly. This is a carefully studied, long process redevelopment of long established employment property within an existing business park. I know we've got a full agenda tonight, so I'll do my best to abbreviate this. Just quickly to touch on our firm, Mark Logistics and IPT Enterprise, we're long-term investors and developers of high-quality industrial real estate across North America, Europe, and Asia. We take pride in the fact that although we have global scale, We have a local presence and expertise. We do not view this as a build and leave it project. Our intent is to create a durable, high quality asset that is well designed, well managed and compatible with the long term planning framework of the city. That long term perspective matters here. We recognize that this site sits near a residential community and we have approached the project with that sensitivity in mind. Through site planning, architecture, landscaping, operating restrictions and now additional conditions of approval. From an experience standpoint, our team is completed or is in the process of completing over 180 industrial projects throughout the United States. We have 43 completed or active developments in California, 72 industrial properties in Southern California alone, and two of those are in the city of Lake Forest. That experience gives us a strong understanding of how to design and operate high quality industrial projects and establish Southern California communities, including locations where industrial and commercial uses coexist with nearby residential neighborhoods. You're all familiar with the location. This existing building was previously occupied by Panasonic Avionics and is an outdated, functionally obsolete office and R&D building. This project would replace that older facility with a modern Class A industrial building designed to meet current sustainability ARCHITECTURAL, OPERATIONAL, AND TENANT STANDARDS. THE SITE HAS LONG BEEN PLANNED AND USED FOR EMPLOYMENT GENERATING BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES, AND THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN CONTINUES TO DESIGNATE THIS SITE FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. AS MENTIONED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, THE EIR AND AREA PLAN FOR THE MEADOWS RECOGNIZE THE PROXIMITY OF THE ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THIS PROPERTY AND THE LONGSTANDING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK USES and provided for measures, including a block wall and landscape buffers. That matters because the surrounding industrial context did not appear after the nearby homes. Industrial and employment uses were already here, and the city's planning documents continue to recognize this area as part of the city's employment base. Jennifer did a great job going through the specs, so I'm not gonna run through those. I'm just gonna go on to this next rendering. What I do want to make a point is we are not requesting any variances here for height, for setbacks. We're not asking council to change the zoning or amend the general plan. This project is being proposed entirely within the existing allowable zoning framework for the property. This project is a permitted use subject only to a site development permit along with the accompanying EIR. It's also important to emphasize that the proposed building is less than what the zoning would allow. We're staying below the permitted development envelope and using that discretion to create a more thoughtful site plan with enhanced screening, setbacks, landscaping, and operational constraints. The building has been designed with high-end finishes, significant architectural articulation, enhanced building corners, abundant window openings at office corners, and screened truck yards, as you'll see here in the rendering. We've spent a significant amount of time designing the building around the residential adjacency, which, again, the Meadows EIR and Area Plan analyzed and provided safeguards for. Our project expands on those safeguards. The truck yard and truck parking are oriented away from residential uses. The truck areas are screened by the building, 16-foot high walls, dense landscaping, setbacks, existing topography, and landscape walls along the property line. That orientation was intentional. We placed less auto parking closest to the residential edge and oriented the operating portions of the building toward the business park rather than towards the Meadows community. Next, you'll see the line of sight analysis that further supports that approach. New mature trees will be planted to create a visual screen. Truck yard and truck parking areas are oriented away from the homes and screened by the building screen walls and that topography I mentioned. This is a project that's been designed to reduce visual and operational impacts at the residential edge, not maximize them. Sustainability is a key component of the project. We will be targeting LEED Silver certification. That includes energy efficiency above code standards, 100% LED lighting, photovoltaic readiness, drought tolerant landscaping, EV charging infrastructure, water efficiency, and reclaimed water features. The project will contribute more than $2.5 million in community infrastructure and development impact fees to the City of Lake Forest. It also includes improvements to five nearby intersections. I can get into that in more detail, but I would like to emphasize all these improvements are project features above and beyond the EIR mitigation measures. And Jennifer did a good job covering those earlier. Some of the EIR mitigation improvements also include that new bike lane connecting the project area to Alton Parkway. and improvements to the bus stop at Dimension Drive and Commerce Center Drive, including a new bus shelter. Those are direct, tangible benefits to the community that will improve circulation, safety, and public infrastructure in this area. I've included an overview of the aerial you've already seen here. But in addition to the direct infrastructure work, this project will further strengthen Lake Forest's economic base. Modern employment properties create value through construction jobs, permanent jobs, property tax revenues, development impact fees, ongoing business activity, and secondary spending in the community. The broader economic development message is straightforward. Obsolete employment product can be modernized into higher value, higher quality business space that supports local services, a stronger tax base and workforce that spends money in the city during the work week. This project creates temporary construction jobs and permanent employment opportunities by reactivating this site as a potential thriving job center for uses such as advanced manufacturing and research and development. Earlier outreach materials estimated approximately 150 to 200 construction jobs and 50 to 100 permanent jobs. Those materials also emphasize that the project would generate substantially less traffic than prior office use assumptions, and I think that's important to hit on And Jennifer mentioned that in the alternative use, that if we were to reoccupy this existing building, we would likely have significantly more traffic. We're also partnering with local labor and business organizations, including LiUNA, the Carpenters, Crete LA, and the Lake Forest Chamber of Commerce and the Orange County Business Council. Community outreach has been extensive for this project. I mentioned we closed over five years ago. and there's been several years of ongoing community outreach. The project team distributed a project survey to more than 900 homes, hosted more than 15 community meetings and workshops, held multiple workshop meetings at the project site at the Lake Forest Community and Rec Center, and arranged a tour of a recently completed similar IPT project in Irvine, which you see a picture of here right off Jamboree Road. The outreach record also included project materials, a project email and phone number for residents, English and Mandarin materials, and more than 60 survey responses, one-on-one coffee meetings and meetings with members of the opposition group, and additional resident meetings to clarify misconceptions and solicit feedback. We know not every resident supports the project. I know that's far from true. But the record shows that we made ourselves available repeatedly to listen, explain, refine, and respond. Before I close, I just want to briefly address the appeal. There's no way I could address the appeal as well as Alicia did, so thank you for the detail there. But just at a high level, the appeal raises concerns regarding air quality, greenhouse gases, traffic and VMT, proximity to residences, health impacts, noise, light, cumulative impacts, enforceability of conditions and alternatives. I understand those concerns. They are serious topics. but I respectfully believe the appeal does not fully account for the context of this property, the existing zoning, the city's general plan, the extensive EIR process, the project's design, and the additional operating conditions that were added through the planning commission process. This is in addition to the Meadows EIR, which likewise addressed many of these issues. Industrial has been here first for a long time. We are fully consistent within the existing zoning and the allowed development envelope. This is not a chemical plant. This is not a heavy factory or a massive IE style regional warehouse. We are similar in size to a small local Costco. The project includes additional conditions, including the quiet zone, truck trip caps, limited truck access, idling limits, signage and notification requirements, and monitoring and reporting obligations. Reoccupying the existing office does not equal less intensity, as I mentioned earlier. Prior materials estimated roughly 1,572 trips per day if we were to reoccupy that existing office building. With the proposed use, we're looking at roughly 785 trips per day, which is what the material studied. Mayor and council members, I want to close by acknowledging there are clearly strong feelings about this project. We understand and respect that. We've never dismissed those concerns of the Meadows residents. or anyone else who has participated in this process. Ultimately, we believe much of the remaining concern and opposition is a result of significant misinformation about our proposed project. We ask that this project be evaluated based on the facts, the planning history, the adopted zoning, the EIR, the staff report, the conditions of approval, and the actual project before you. This project is a modern Class A, state-of-the-art industrial facility designed to replace an obsolete office and R&D building within an established business park. It's designed to attract small, mid-sized businesses, advanced manufacturing, R&D, aerospace, medical, pharmaceutical, and similar high-quality employment users, the kinds of businesses that can benefit from the highly educated workforce that Lake Forest already offers. We're not asking for variances or building height setbacks. We're not asking to change the general plan. We're not asking to introduce a use that is foreign to this area. We're working completely within the confines of the allowable zoning. And that zoning history is important. Industrial unemployment uses were established here long before the Meadows residential community was approved in 2020. The industrial context here is not hidden. It was part of the existing planning framework. And the city's 2040 general plan reaffirmed light industrial as a designation for this area and this exact site. We've made ourselves available throughout this process. We sent surveys to more than the 900 homes I mentioned earlier, and the community outreach was extensive. As a result of that process, the project changed and the conditions became stronger. And finally, I want to address something that's been difficult to communicate, but I think it's important to address. We met with the original home builder back in 2021 in our original diligence to review our plan and ensure they understood the proposed project. During that process and after receiving their support, we granted them a temporary construction easement on our property that was actually used to develop several of the homes adjacent to our development, our proposed development. We would have made ourselves available to prospective buyers if questions had been raised during the disclosure process. We did not hear from residents until later in 2023 when protest letters began to be submitted to the plan development. I do not say that to blame anyone. I say it simply because the history does matter. We have acted transparently, responsibly, and in good faith the entire process. The project before you tonight is less intense than what could be built under the zoning. It includes more restrictions than typical industrial projects. It creates infrastructure improvements, development impact fees, construction jobs, permanent jobs, permanent tax revenue, and secondary economic benefits. It modernizes an obsolete property, and it does so while accepting operational controls on truck activity, idling, nighttime operations, access, and enforceability. Finally, I want to say thank you again to city staff, especially Jennifer, Amy, and Gail. Your tireless work on this very complicated and challenging project has not gone unnoticed. And I want to thank Planning Commission for their thoughtful review and unanimous 5-0 approval. And I want to thank the council for your time and consideration tonight. We respectfully ask that you deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, the City Council now has the opportunity to ask questions of city staff and the applicant's representatives. So I did have a list of questions that I had, and they were mostly answered by staff and the project folks. But I do have, are there any businesses right now in that park that

work or that run 24 hours or do 24 hours anybody run 24 hours in that area so i'm not sure if in that specific business park if there are any but we have obviously businesses industrial businesses in the city that operate 24 hours and we um most of our industrial zoning districts don't have any restrictions on how long they can operate right

My other question is, does the current use of the property have more impact regarding the VMT and GHG than the proposed project?

In terms of VMT, yes. The office building, and I think it has been mentioned a couple of times, would have a higher trip generation and therefore a higher VMT.

And one of the questions I developed mirror did not ask for zoning amendments. He he stayed well within.

Correct, there's no variances requested as part of this project.

OK, and like two of the questions were, you know what's it zoned for and about the disclosures to the people that were bought homes in. In the meadow, so it's it's it's not a question, just a thought of mine colleagues.

So we did provide the disclosures in the staff report that were provided to the Meadows when they bought their homes, and it does stipulate what the surrounding uses are around the property project, including the industrial areas.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. So after reviewing the 1,385 pages that we had in the staff report and getting through that, and picking out different things and seeing all the emails that have come to us from the concerned residents. One of them that kind of hit me recently, wanted to see if you had any information about the aspect of impact to reduction in home values. Is there any other evidence about other projects that had residential locations nearby that shows that home values actually decrease because of this light industrial adjacent project?

So in the context of the environmental impact report, we don't look at financial impacts that a project would have either on the land on which it's built or on surrounding users. So that is outside the scope of the CEQA process. And it's also outside of the scope of the general planning process. So we don't have that data available to share with the council.

Okay, I was just maybe just to engage, if Chris, if you have comment on how your other projects, you have numerous situations where they're next to a residential, if you could speak to, if you know what happened to residential home values next to projects that were developed.

I can't speak specifically to appraised home values next to residential areas. I will say we don't take on zoning risk as a developer. We develop in areas that are intentionally zoned for industrial. In some cases, it is adjacent to residential. And in previous cases, I have not seen a response that the residential community's home values were impacted.

Yeah, I understand it's hard to project. I was just looking for if there was some kind of a study, if there's evidence that shows that and supports the... information that was received in an email so i just i understand this might be difficult but i just wanted to ask it anyway to see if there was something that would support the fact that home values always drop or sometimes drop in these kind of developments and doesn't seem to be you know evidence that's there on that so but i appreciate you trying to address the question yeah unfortunately i don't have any anecdotal evidence for that okay thank you yep there

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANKS FOR COMING TONIGHT. THEY MENTIONED 15 TRUCKS PER HOUR FOR DAYTIME USE. WHAT WAS THE NIGHTTIME USE? FOUR TRUCK TRIPS. THE 16-FOOT WALL, IS THAT ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROJECT, KIND OF PARALLEL WITH THE BACKYARDS OF THE HOMES?

WE JUST HAD THE SITE PLAN UP THERE. I think I can jump through it here. There you go. Okay, so it's really, there you go, where the cursor is showing, which is really the northeast side of the property with the residential up along the boundary there on the right-hand side of the plan. So yeah, that is the 16-foot wall that is sheltering the truck yard.

While you're there, how many extra trees were planted? Obviously, enhancement was there and visible, and thank you for that. But how many extra trees did you guys plant?

Yeah, Council Member, I can't tell you the exact number. Jennifer may know. She knows some of these specs better than I do. But I believe it's at least five to six tall, mature trees, 36 to 48-inch boxes, and then several other smaller trees as well. But there will be several large, mature trees that will be planted day one. And we did show the existing and proposed line of sight here with some of the improvements where those trees will be planted.

And you mentioned a truck yard. Now go back one slide.

Was that me?

OK. Go one slide back. And you guys had the truck yard. So if trucks came in early morning or in the evening, where do they park?

So this truck yard is just designed for them to back up to the actual dock doors. We don't actually have it designed for separate trailer parking.

So does that consider like four trucks per hour at night?

It does. I realize that's what the EIR studied. We feel that is a very conservative estimate. as far as how many trucks would actually be utilizing it, but we do not anticipate that a tenant would be fully utilizing all these dock doors at once. But as we mentioned, and Alicia covered this in the appeal responses, the EIR studies that as a worst case scenario, but we do not anticipate that being the case.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to go back to the legal counsel's comments regarding fully addressed, which shows up in many of the comments. And fully addressed, but in a previous comment, you had actually said that the statement made was false, and you clarified why. But the other ones that are fully addressed, you're just saying that it's been addressed and there's nothing else to address in that? Or is their statement incorrect? Or help me understand.

so what we are saying um if the green language in the powerpoint said fully addressed that means that the issue is one that we identified in the eir a response was provided so for example the last bullet point project would violate the one hour knock standard during construction the project would not violate a one-hour NOx standard during construction because we didn't analyze for that. We analyzed for what the South Coast Air Quality Management District guidelines require us to evaluate, which is daily emissions of NOx and whether or not daily emissions would exceed the standards that are set in our basin plan. Yes, so that is what fully addressed means in that context. There were other allegations made throughout that if you just read the black language, you could think, oh, well, that's a true statement. But if you read the response in the final EIR or the draft EIR that we have provided citation to, it will explain the full statement. RATIONALE BEHIND THE RESPONSE TO THAT ISSUE.

WAS THAT THE ATTACHMENT NINE THAT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT HAD ALL THOSE DIFFERENT CONCERNS AND THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO THEM? YES. IT WAS ATTACHMENT NINE. IT HAD PAGES AND PAGES OF ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM HOMEOWNERS AND THE RESPONSES THAT RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE EIR AND CEQA.

YES. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, IN THAT CASE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LAST BULLET, IT SAYS FULLY ADDRESSED, WE COULD, I THINK IT'S SUGGESTING WE COULD IN CERTAIN LANGUAGE, IT WOULD SAY IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

YES.

RIGHT? SO THAT'S ONE COMMENT, AND YOU COULD SAY THIS MATTER IS FULLY ADDRESSED, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

That's right, and we do say that in the final.

I'm doing this for the public, too, because I want to be clear, fully addressed doesn't really tell us anything. I know it says it's addressed, but it doesn't say addressed in what way. In what way. Or it's not applicable.

That is correct, yes. So fully addressed means that the EIR looked at that issue, the final EIR looked at that issue and provided a response. So the direct response will be on that page in the final EIR.

Okay, but again, in that particular item, the violate the one hour NOX is not a requirement.

That's correct.

Okay. And that's true for anywhere else that similar circumstance applies for these fully addressed comments. It's either not a requirement by CEQA or anywhere else.

That's right. And so look to the response that is provided on the page in the final EIR or draft EIR and it will explain the full theory behind the response.

Okay. And for the applicant, I just want to clarify that during the Planning Commission, there were five additional conditions that were worked through at that meeting. And then staff has subsequently, I'll say, refined them, strengthened them, whatever term you would want to use, and that you as an applicant are in support of the revised language put forth by staff. I just want to clarify.

Yes, sir. We're in agreement with the revised conditions as well as one additional condition regarding surveillance equipment that really is tied to those initial, just those previous.

Just want to clarify for the public that you're agreeing to that.

We're in agreement with all of them.

Okay. And then the impacts for VMT are, I'm sorry, the impacts to the greenhouse gas is tied to the VMT. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

But CEQA does not allow a baseline assumption of the current property. Can you expand on that just a little bit?

That is correct. So when conducting a project level environmental impact report, CEQA requires the baseline to be set at the existing condition. And the existing condition is defined by regulation to be either the date when environmental review began or the date of the notice of preparation. So in this case, on the date of the notice of preparation, the site was vacant or the building was vacant. It was not occupied. There were no trips going in and out of that site. So the VMT for purposes of CEQA determination was based on a zero baseline.

BUT STAFF WAS ARTICULATING, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT DID AS WELL, THAT IF AN OCCUPANT WERE TO COME ALONG AND UTILIZE THAT PROPERTY, THE GREENHOUSE GAS WOULD ACTUALLY EXCEED WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED WITH THIS PROJECT, IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GERMANE TO CEQA, BUT IT'S AN OBSERVATION BY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, I PRESUME, AS WELL?

PRECISELY. OKAY.

I THINK THAT'S IT FOR NOW, MAYOR. Chris, I know you're looking for the max optionality for the property. And one of the major concerns of AMT and also the neighbor concern of noise during the night. Have you considered limit to the operation to daytime only?

We have considered it. Unfortunately, that makes the leaseability of our property. It reduces it dramatically. Tenants, while they don't focus on nighttime operations, Some do choose to make deliveries or operate within their building during nighttime where they're not driving during peak hours. So we would not be as competitive with some of the other competing properties out there that do not have nighttime restrictions. And in turn, we could be looking at having a vacant building sitting there while other properties are able to attract tenants because they don't have those restrictions. So unfortunately, that's not something we could ultimately entertain.

Okay. Thank you. OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO TAKE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS. AND HIGHEST AND BEST USE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING FOR US AS COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WE TAKE HIGHLY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE NEIGHBORS, AMBIENCE LIGHTS FOR THE PARKING LOT. ARE THEY GOING TO BE DIRECTED? HOW ARE YOU HANDLING THE LIGHTS FOR THE PARKING LOT?

Yeah, we do a photovoltaic study, and that involves looking at all the lighting and the directions of it and make sure there's no light pollution. I believe that's covered in the EIR as well to ensure there's no impacts to the surrounding community. And it's also something that we have to study through LEED and make sure we minimize light pollution. So we've studied it through various mechanisms to ensure that it won't be impacting the Meadows. Thank you. Or the businesses surrounding us.

Okay, thank you. So now representatives for the appellant may now present the reasons for their application and any additional evidence. He has five minutes, right?

Five minutes. Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Harrison Jiang. I'm a resident of the Meadows at Lake Forest, and I'm also the president of Weida Meadows, a community organization representing many residents of our neighborhood and neighborhood communities. I'm also speaking tonight as the opponent to the Planning Commission Committee's recommendation on the approval of ITP enterprise project. We want to make one thing very clear. We are not against business. We are not against warehouse. We are against massive warehouses being built directly adjacent to residential homes. Our message tonight is very clear. No warehouses next to homes. Please protect our neighborhoods. What do we mean by next to homes? The closest wall-to-wall distance between the proposed IPT warehouse and the Meadows single-family homes is approximately 100 feet. The closest wall-to-wall distance between the proposed Western warehouse and the Meadows Senior Apartments is approximately 230 feet. To put that in perspective, 100 feet is about the length of a basketball court. What concerns us most is that within the 100 feet separation, there'll be truck ingress and egress route with truck traffic 24 seven between warehouse buildings and the residential homes. Imagine standing in this room. Now imagine the front is the 35 foot tall warehouse and all the way in the back of this room is your house. So in between is constant stream of truck traffic in between. That's the reality many Lake Forest family may face. That leaves us with a simple question. Who is going to protect our homeowners and the residents? That responsibility belongs to all of us, and especially to the public officials entrusted with protecting the health, safety, and welfare of Lake Forest residents. We're also concerned that the final ERR still leaves important questions unanswered. The future tenant remains unknown. I just hope that you guys can...

REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT THREE PUBLIC COMMENTERS. MATT DUNPHY, SUNNY WU, AND VICKY ZHU.

Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Matt Dunphy. I'm with the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. We stood before the Planning Commission on June 4th to urge the approval of this project, and we're here tonight to ask the Council to deny this appeal. We understand that the neighbors concerns, but the facts are clear. This property is explicitly zoned for light industrial use and sits inside an active industrial corridor. It is a vacant, aging and underutilized manufacturing lot. not an untouched green space. Replacing it with a modern facility will make it far cleaner, quieter, and more environmentally responsible for the one that it will replace. Furthermore, the developer is finding physical upgrades to increase the public safety for these tracks off residential streets. The Planning Commission thoroughly vested the project, certified the EIR, and made the right call. The zoning fits, the traffic mitigations are locked in, and our local work

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. My name is Sunny Wu. I am a resident of Baker Ranch. I respectfully ask the council to conduct a true de novo review of this project. Your responsibility is to independently determine whether this development is in the best interest of our community, not simply to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation. Recent events, including the chemical tank overheating in Garden Grove and the warehouse fire in Boyle Heights, remind us why careful scrutiny of industrial project is so important. I am not suggesting this project would cause such an incident, but these events highlight the need to thoroughly evaluate fire safety, emergency access, traffic, environmental impact, and compatibility with nearby homes.

Thank you for your comments.

My name is Vicky Zhu and I'm a resident of Baker Ranch. So at the Planning Commission hearing on June 1st, five important conditions were added near the end after many residents had already spoken or left. So when newly added conditions become a key basis for project approval, meaningful public participation requires more than a last minute presentation. So I respectfully ask the council to conduct a review that is fair, balanced, and truly independent. and to ensure the public has had a meaningful opportunity to participate and please approve the appeal. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next three public commenters are Anna Peng, Weixian Zhu, and Yanbo Zhu. Anna Peng, Weixian Zhu, and Yanbo Zhu.

My name is Anna Peng. I'm a resident of the Meadows community. I'd like to share a personal experience. In August 2024, I was stopped at a traffic light at Commerce Center Drive and the Big Parkway when a car lost control, crashed into the driver's side of my vehicle. I was fortunate to survive. but I often think how different the outcome could have been if it had been a fully loaded warehouse truck instead of a passenger car. That experience changed how I think about the traffic safety. Large warehouse bring tens and hundreds of traffic trips every day, increasingly traffic noisy, pollution, and the risk of serious accidents. especially for the children, seniors, pedestrians, and cyclists. Our labor hood.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council Member. First statement of overriding, without knowing future tenants and with so many assumptions, we urge the city clearly demonstrate with solid evidence that allege the benefits truly outweighs the bad environmental impacts. The warehouse 100 feet away from one property and 300 feet from the seniors poses fire risk. The recent incident in the Boiler Heights in June just caught fire and lasted eight days, caused a state of emergency for toxics. However, Meadows, we don't have such buffer. It really, really poses the risk of fire. So we together urge the council to reject the IPT project. Number two.

Thank you for your comments. Sir, thank you for your comments.

Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Yanbo Zhao, and I've lived in the Meadows for four years, and our homes will be one of the homes bordering the business center project. By putting a 24-7 truck yard in our backyard for an unknown tenant, you are asking us to accept significant and unavoidable traffic and emission impacts. A wall won't fix this. It won't stop the diesel exhaust threatening my parents' health, and it won't stop the backup alarms destroying my brother's peace. It also won't save our property values. Our neighbors are already dropping their price by $200,000, but because of the warehouse disclosure, no one dares to make an offer. Please prioritize our community and residents' well-being and grant the appeal and deny this project. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next three public commenters are Bin Zhu, Peter Schaffer, and Sunny. If you could please line up, Bin Zhu, Peter Schaffer, and Sunny.

This is, tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of the 1,000, 292 residents who signed the online petition outside this project. The 1,292 signatures represent no more, it's not a, you know, the number, the representation 1,292 families ask you to protect our community. Once this warehouse is built, our community will have to live with it for many, many years. Please make the right decision tonight. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

THANK YOU, HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PETER SHAEFER. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF NAIOP, THE LEADING COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, AND ALSO AS A SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENT WHO GREW UP IN IRVINE AND STARTED MY FAMILY HERE IN LAKE FOREST. INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE REGIONAL ECONOMY SUPPORTING ALL OF THEIR BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS. ACROSS ORANGE COUNTY, INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES SUPPORT APPROXIMATELY 183,000 DIRECT JOBS AND $28.5 BILLION IN ECONOMIC OUTPUT. Lake Forest maintains a thoughtful and balanced general plan that recognizes both neighborhoods and employment centers. This project is consistent with that vision. The site lies within a long established business park that predates the adjacent residential community. In a mature city like Lake Forest, preserving industrial capacity depends on modernizing and redeveloping existing properties. That's exactly what this project does. It's been studied, reviewed, and refined over several years. The Planning Commission carefully evaluated the evidence and approved the project.

Thank you for your comments.

Sunny? All right, we'll move on to our next three public commenters. Feng Yi Yang, Diana Lise, and Vivian Zhao. Please line up. Feng Yi Yang, Diana Lise, Vivian Zhao. No? All right, we will move on to our next. Excuse me, what's your name? What was your name? Diana. Diana, all right.

I thought there was a person in front of me.

Yes, go ahead. During June 4th planning committee meeting, I heard conflict answers from the applicant. I immediately raised my hand because I wanted a clarification. Unfortunately, I was never given the opportunity, but the committee gave the applicants numerous times to defend his project. The California Brown Act is built on the principle of open government and meaningful public participation. When residents are prevented from seeking clarification on a critical public safety issue, meaningful public participation is lost. So tonight, I respectfully ask this council, several questions. How can anyone honestly guarantee that there will be no hazardous materials when no one knows who the future tenants will be?

Thank you for your comments. Ma'am, thank you for your comments.

Our next three public commenters. Okay, and what's her name?

Ma'am? That's your first warning, ma'am. Okay, this is my second warning. Sir, I'm talking to you that just spoke. This is your last warning. Who are the next three?

Jack, you are saying that we have a public commenter that didn't hear their name the first time. Yes. Who is this? Feng Yiyang. Feng Yiyang? All right. Please go ahead and step up to the podium.

Honorable Mayor, members of the public, good evening. The second closed-door meeting that I will be holding tonight, according to the law, misuses the California government law. This is not a detailed question. It is a question about the public policy of the Boulang Act. The residents are highly concerned about the assessment of the ninth IPT project and the use of land. The project has long been pointed out that there is a significant risk of litigation. It is considered to be Thank you for your comments.

Honorable Mayor, dear members of the council, good evening. Tonight's second closed meeting invoked the wrong code according to the California Code of Conduct 549956.91. This only applies to cases that are in effect but it does not aim at the potential cases that are in effect which applies towards the number D2 code of the Code of California Conduct. This isn't a detail. This is a part of the Brown Act that is publicly trying to avoid. Because of the strong focus of this case, this obviously increases the amount of potential risk for the Brown Act and the corresponding false implication of the Brown Act, which allows for doubts behind.

Thank you for your comments. Madam or Mr. City Attorney, could you please explain the Brown Act when it comes to time for given for public comments?

Yes, thank you. Mr. Mayor as as was mentioned at the outset of the meeting and also before this hearing began The mayor has chosen to limit comments to 60 seconds per speaker because of the number of speakers that we have If we were to do three minutes per speaker, we would be here Likely past midnight as long as every individual is given the same amount of time Which this evening is 60 seconds that is in line with the Brown Act and the First Amendment I should also note that the Brown Act and local law requires decorum in council meetings. Disruptions are not permitted under state law and local law. Warnings have been given. It is actually a misdemeanor to disrupt a council meeting with shouting, with catcalls, with anything that makes it difficult for the council to act. TO EITHER HEAR OR DELIBERATE OR FOR OTHER SPEAKERS TO SPEAK. SO AGAIN, ACTUAL DISRUPTIONS CANNOT BE PERMITTED. THEY ARE A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW AND OF LOCAL LAW, AND THE 60 SECONDS, IF EQUALLY APPLIED TO ALL SPEAKERS, IS WELL WITHIN THE REGULATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT.

THANK YOU. MADAM CITY CLERK?

OUR NEXT THREE SPEAKERS, Next, Jim Hu and Bonnie Zheng. So please, three of you please line up. Yuna Lee, you're up.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Yuna, and I am a 16-year-old student living at Meadows. One of my biggest concerns is that we still do not know who the future tenant will be. The EIR is based on assumptions about office manufacturing and warehouse uses, but assumptions are not the same as real predictions. The City needs to explain what enforceable rules will make sure future operations stay within what was actually studied, and then Right now, residents are being asked to accept major impacts without basic answers. We do not know what kind of businesses will operate there, what materials will be stored or produced, or how much truck traffic will affect our roads and neighborhoods. The community is asking for clear evidence that public safety, emergency evacuation, air quality, noise, and daily life will not be harmed. We will also need real accountability including monitoring, public reporting, corrective action, and penalties if rules are not allowed. Mitigation measures should not just be

Thank you for your comments.

I'm a member of the Meadows community. My name is Jim. This designed plant community, this plant factory,

It's only 82 feet away from Meadows community. If we had a fire where any and all lost of property and any sort of harm, how will the community and everyone sitting here be responsible for it? I recommend that instead of having the loading docks facing the Meadows, we turn it away from the Meadows. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening, dear Mayor and the City Council. My name is Bonnie Zhang, the resident of Meadows. So first, we were never notified by anyone about this project when we purchased this home in the year of 2021. Second, the future tenants are unknown and the ERA heavily relies on assumptions even with the scenario analysis without any evidence. The city must explain what enforceable conditions will ensure that future operations remain within those assumptions. Otherwise, the community is being forced to accept significant and avoidable impacts without evidence. Across California, recently, there are multiple major warehouse fires that are very alarming. There must be accountability. If projects operations cause harm to residents' health, quality of life, and the surrounding environment, there should be clear mechanism for enforcement, corrective action, and the public reporting. Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next three public commenters is Jim Wang, Mark Zhang, and Kelly V. Jim Wang, Mark Zhang, and Kelly V. You guys could please line up. Jim Wang, Mark Zhang, Kelly V. Could you please step up to the podium now? No. Who are you? You're Mark Zhang? Go ahead and go right now, Mark Zhang.

If you vote yes tonight, every one of you will own this decision. You own the unknown tenant. You own the 23 dark doors. You own the diesel trucks next to the homes. You own the late added conditions. You own the taxpayer litigation risk. California court has already warned cities about this. In Sierra Club versus County of Fresno, The California Supreme Court rejected an EIR that failed to clarify connect air pollution to human health CEQA guidelines section 15124 requires a stable project description. Section 15093 require a real evidence for overriding benefits. And this project fails those basic tests. The city approves metals first. Residents did not come to the new ones. The city created this residential reality. Now you are being asked to approve a warehouse and a manufacturing envelope with unknown tenants and speculative jobs. Bloomington, Fontana, and Moreno Valley show that what happened.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Jenny Wei. I'm a Lake Forest BR resident and Operation Director of Orange County Chinese Community Service, a nonprofit long-term volunteer dedicated to advance health quality and improve the quality of life for families, seniors, and underserved community throughout Orange County. This project is not located in Iceland industrial area. It is proposed that immediately Johnson to establish the resident neighborhoods According to the project presentation, some of Meadows' homes are within a maximum of 100 feet of the proposed IPT warehouse. With truck traffic between the homes and the warehouse, nearby senior apartment are also only about 230 feet through another proposed warehouse project. Through my work, service- Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your prog-

Hi, my name is Kelly. I have one question about enforcement. The operating condition only work if city can monitor and enforce them. For example, if a truck does not follow the approved route, how will city know? Who will enforce the rule? This work needs staff funding and long-term monitoring. Has city confirmed it has enough resources to do this? Before voting tonight, why is the council confident These commitments can be enforced for the life of the project. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next three public commenters. I just have a first name for this one, Zhang. All right. Next public commenter is Darren Chard, Sharon Wang, and Kevin Shi, or Shi. Shi. Shi. So Darren Sharr, Sharon Wang, Kevin Shitt.

Good evening. Frankenstein Neighborhoods. City Council members, I'm here tonight to urge you to appeal and reject the final EIR for the proposed warehouse project adjacent to the Meadows. It's not about being anti-development, it's about a severe structural incompatibility. We're talking about a massive 165,000 square foot residential facility with 23 trucking bays being placed less than 100 feet from families, seniors, and playing children separated by nothing more than a simple brick wall. Some points to consider, unreported noise and traffic in regards to the EIR analysis, unmitigated health risks, lack of cumulative impact analysis. This project has been taken in a vacuum. It's not considering the three other sites in consideration in conjunction with this project. So I urge you to reconsider and please reject. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Hi, my name is Kevin Shea. I live in the Meadow. I'm speaking in opposition of the IPT enterprise warehouse project. The final EIR is riddled with baseless assumption and ridiculous conclusion that I am extremely disappointed that the city's planning commission approved the EIR last month despite the strong opposition of the many residents. And most of the stuff discussed in the ERR is totally meaningless when the developer can't even name a future tenant. So the approval of the project is tantamount to giving the developer a blank check. Also, I wish to mention the warehouse as well as Butte will undoubtedly raise the insurance premium for many of the homes in the area and depress the home value. which also will reduce the property tax revenue to the city. Also, I wish to mention the huge risk.

Thank you for your comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next three public commenters, Linda Gu, and I just have a first name here, Willen, and Shelly Wang. Linda Gu, Willen, Shelly Wang.

Good evening. My name is Linda Gu. I'm a homeowner in the Meadows. You are posed to tell us that the environmental harms of the IPT enterprise warehouse project are a necessary evil because the project brings employment and revenue to Lake Forest. In fact, modern logistics centers are not the job engines of the past. They are highly automated, computerized fulfillment spaces. You are trading steady long-term property tax revenue from thousands of dedicated residents for a predictable low-income warehouse that could sit half empty or fully automated in five years. Do not allow the developer to waive vague promise of revenue in front of this council. I urge you to ground this appeal and deny the permit. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good evening. It's already very clear the change from the office to the warehouse will bring more impact on the nearby residents. Based on this conclusion, I respectfully ask you three questions. First, what justification allows to require one group of residents to permanently bear this environmental burden for the benefit of others? The second is, who benefits from the sacrifice? I do not know whether the city has fully considered this question, but one thing is very clear, those who bear the burden will not be the same people who receive the benefits. The third, who is responsible for addressing the loss suffered by those residents? if that sacrifice is both necessary.

Thank you for your comment, sir. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. Tonight, I just want to ask one question. Can the government allow new residents to make sure that the long-term environmental impact and economic losses will be exchanged for a so-called public interest that has not yet been proven? So far, we still don't know who the future tenants will be and how they will deal with it. In other words, the so-called public interest is still uncertain today, but the price of the residents is certain. According to California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA's core principle, full disclosure, full analysis, avoidance is avoidance. If a person has a major impact, he must publicly explain why he deserves it. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. I am a resident of Lake Forest community tonight. I only have one question. How can the government allow the resident to bear the long-term environmental impact and economical lost for a unproven for an unproven public good. In other words, we are not sure if there will be positive effect of this project, but what we have to shoulder, that is for sure. According to the CEQA's core principles, It needs full disclosure, full analysis, and to avoid all potential costs. But right now, we do not know. It's unproven that tomorrow it will bring us the economic good that it promises. And yet, we are certain to bear the cost for this project. Is that fair? I beg everyone to please consider these problems. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next three public commenters, William Wang, Mei Cai, and I just have a first name here, Jennifer. So you three could please line up. William Wang, Mei Cai, and Jennifer. William is not here, so please, Mei Cai and Jennifer, you could please sign up.

WAN SHAN HAO. Overconsideration is a Thank you for your comments.

GOOD EVENING. EVEN THOUGH THE CITY WANTS TO USE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CITY MUST EXPLAIN WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE BENEFITS THAT OVERRIDING BENEFITS ARE BRINGING. RIGHT NOW WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT VERY WAGUE IDEAS, FOR EXAMPLE, JOBS, TAXES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUT WHERE ARE THE PROOFS? WHO ARE THE FUTURE TENANTS? HOW MANY JOBS WILL IT CREATE? WHETHER THESE JOBS ARE GOING TO LOCAL CITIZENS, HOW MUCH DO THESE JOBS PAY? HOW MUCH TAXES? the neighbors surrounding this areas lose in terms of their investments? How will it affect the community when the high income individuals move out of the area? How much taxation are we talking about? What exactly are the economic goods that it brings? So cities cannot use vague these ideas of great benefits to sacrifice for sure the overall neighboring community's interest. Overriding considerations should not be a slogan. It should be proven. Please do not.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Mayor and council member, my name is Williamson and I'm a resident of the Meadows. Tonight, I urge you to continue this hearing or amend the case rather than rushing the approval. This project will affect our community for decades. We need the city to take the time to truly clarify the tenants' conditions and accumulated impacts. The fact that the state is still adding last-minute conditions shows this project's discretion is simply not matured. or reliable enough for a vote anytime soon. Last but not the least, I would like to ask the decision maker tonight, if the project were close to your backyard, will you approve it? Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Any supervision, enforcement, and restrictions And the complete project that can be fully integrated and operated tonight It is completely against the core requirements of CEQA environment assessment There are major environmental regulations and regulations loopholes So I ask the City Council to postpone the review of this project Require the project party to re-apply the real scene of the full integration and operation of 23 stations Thank you. Mr. Mayor, council members, I absolutely against

the passing of this appeal. Right now there are nine things listed at here, but one of them being that there are 23 ports that are connected to the building. However, on the EIR report, it only uses the metric of low-capacity loading to measure the amount of noise that is being measured. The most important question is that under low-capacity, it does not get oversight from the law. It does not have any sensors required. that are watching oversight, having oversight to these projects. And overall, I believe that this EIR is operating under the assumption of a low-capacity, but tonight we're talking about a full-capacity port project that has 23 ports, which is completely against what CEQA stands for.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next three public commenters, Erin Cai, Du Xu Hua, and Mindy Lee. Erin Cai, Du Xu Hua, Mindy Lee? No? Ma'am, if you could please step up to the podium. Yeah. If somebody else is ready. What is your name?

Mindy Lee.

Mindy Lee, okay, thank you.

Good evening. My name is Mingli Li. I'm the resident of Meadows. Conditions such as quiet hours or five minutes' idling limit are not enough. Nighttime operations must be clearly prohibited. Without that protection, residents will never have true nighttime peace. Residents should not be expected to live next to 24-hour industrial operations. If these protections cannot be guaranteed, these projects should not be approved. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Honorable mayor, members of the city, hello everyone. After I came here today, we found that there is only one minute of speech time. The time is very limited. We want to talk about human rights. There are many details that cannot be said in detail, but we firmly oppose the construction of this large 24-hour warehouse next to the residential area. Because of the noise and noise caused by the traffic, will continue to threaten the health of old people, children, and people with chronic diseases. What is even more worrying is that if there is a chemical leak in the warehouse, the fire will even explode. The residents and the elders in the old-age apartment will not be able to withdraw at all. Thank you for your comments.

Hello, everyone. Only after we get here do we know that we only have one minute to speak. So there are many details I'm going to skip, but we are absolutely against building this 24-hour warehouse near our community. The greenhouse gas emissions created by the trucks, the noise, will continuously endanger the lives of children, elders, and those who have chronic diseases. what's more worrying is that if there are chemical leaks fires or even explosions the nearby community members who are slow in in their moving around they don't won't have enough time to leave which creates huge safety risks this area has a high population density it is not fitted for a warehouse so please understand and reject this proposal keep us safe thank you very much thank you

Thank you everyone.

Good evening, we are absolutely against this project and we have three demands that should be listed as conditions for the approval of this project. Number one, that all the unloading areas will be relocated to the southwestern wall. The second condition being that the walls surrounding the building should not be lower than 20 feet. Third, that we should prohibit all activities from the nights 10 p.m. through 7 a.m. the next morning. Please listen to our proposal. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next three public commenters is Connie, Jeffrey Yu, and Cesar Lamas. Connie, Jeffrey Yu, Cesar Lamas. Please step up to the podium.

June 2026 in Boyle Heights, a warehouse caught fire. It burned for eight days. The governor declared a state of emergency. In April, a massive warehouse in Ontario was completely destroyed by a fire. Days ago, another warehouse fire in Stockton caused a wall collapse and brought down high voltage power lines. These were real events that happened in California. Families were exposed to heavy smoke. Emergency room visits also surged. And they all have one thing in common. None of these warehouses were built within 100 feet of people's homes. Even with buffers, nearby communities still suffered from smoke, hazardous debris, and lasting public health impacts. The proposed warehouse would be built 100 feet from the meadows, which is a direct residential exposure. When a warehouse of this size catches fire, firefighters may have no choice but to adopt a defensive strategy, and if that happens here, our homes would be immediately next to a major industrial fire with minimal separation from extreme heat, smoke, and airborne. Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. Good evening.

Mayor and the members of the City Council, I have one question. If the city has already determined that the project must operate under strict limits, what analysis support providing a building with 23 loading docks that is much larger than the level of activity the city expected to allow? Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Cesar Lamas. I am a nine-year proud member with the Laborers International Union of North America. It's jobs like these that kind of create the opportunities that gave me my first start too. Through the apprenticeship program, THROUGH THE 24 YEARS THAT ARE ABOUT TO RETIRE, IT'S A GATEWAY FOR A CAREER, FOR A PATH FOR THE YOUTH TO START THEIR CAREER AND FOR RETIREES THAT ARE ON THEIR PATH TO THEIR FINAL JOB TO ESSENTIALLY EITHER BEGIN THEIR CAREER OR END IT. WE COME IN FULL APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT AND TO APPEAL THE DENIAL AND GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE PROJECT, GET US TO WORK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

And our next three public commenters, Aria, Mark Hermanson, and Richard Lacerio. Aria, Mark Hermanson, and Richard Lacerio. Please have you line up. Mark Hermanson, you can go ahead and step up to the podium. Thank you.

I wasn't going to speak tonight, but doing the math, 15 trucks an hour, that's about 150 trucks a day, eight a day from Costco, six a day from Walmart, five a day from Target, plus four overnight and other small businesses. Could that mean we could easily hit 200 trucks a day? And if they're coming off the 91 to Lake Forest, what kind of cluster is that going to create in Foothill Ranch, plus when they all meet coming up from the 5? I didn't hear anything about a traffic study. My other question is when I walked in, I noticed about 16, 17 members of the union. Are they members of our community, or are they here as a show of force for their paycheck? If they're members of our community, I encourage them to speak. If not, I encourage them to sit down. These are my brothers and sisters here that I live by. We're not just a paycheck for them. And I haven't heard one say they live in this community. So sorry, I don't care about that. I care about my city. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

RICHARD LACERIO, THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL, STAFF. YOUR CITY ATTORNEY ANSWERED EVERYTHING ELOQUENTLY. THE EIR WAS DONE PERFECT. I HOPE YOU DENY THE APPEAL. I'M A LIFELONG ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENT. I WORKED ON THAT STRIP MALL ON BAKE AND TRIBUCO. I REMEMBER THE TRAFFIC JAMS GOING THERE, AND THEY REDID THE STREETS, AND THERE'S NO MORE TRAFFIC JAMS. THANK YOU.

Thank you for your comments.

And we have two more in-person public commenters, and that is Jay Cost and Andrea Alexander. Jay Cost and Andrea Alexander, if you could please line up at the podium.

Hello. Thank you. I'm not a resident of the Meadows, but I am a homeowner in Serrano Park here in Lake Forest. My concerns are truck traffic, air pollution, and sound pollution up and down Bake Parkway and Lake Forest roadways. I already hear race cars, motorcycles, and trucks going up and down Bake. And as As tenants are unknown and other risks and concerns are more local data centers and overusing more water and energy in our community. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your comments.

Good evening Mayor, City Council and staff. Please don't do to these folks who live by the proposed industrial building what the City Council did to residents who back up to bake years ago. We have seen the traffic increase exponentially over the years and now you want to add more. 15 trucks per hour a day, four trucks per hour at night. Consider the health and safety risks of fuel particulates. You remember when I came to you with all my concerns about fuel particulates? Well, and what will violation enforcement by the industry look like? I respectfully ask that you vote against this proposal, and I'm sorry, my union friends, but my health is at risk. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you, Mayor. That is all for in-person public comment, and now I'm going to pass it over to Assistant City Clerk Bolts, and we are going to, I think we have about four public commenters online. Our first public commenter is Kathy Liv.

Kathy, please tell us if you need an interpreter.

excuse me are you kathy yes hello uh good evening mayor and council members um my name is kathy lou and i like leaving the meadows um this is our last chance to her before this purchase final so i'll be direct in the past year california has seen major warehouse fires in boyan heights hotel and stockton not one of these homes that closer than roughly 2500 phased from the fire, and even at a distance, the state declared emergency and families were choked by toxic smoke before delays. APT Enterprise warehouse is planned less than 300 feet from our homes. No warehouse fire in California this year happened anywhere near or close to a residential community. If it burns, fire crews will not go in. They will stand back in defensive posture while radiant heat alone is enough to shatter our windows and ignite our fuse. On this project, we also raised our insurance premiums, depressed our property values by up to 20%, and sent a procedure that enterprise went into a 24-7 industry.

Next commenter is Shenhua Zhang. Please let us know if you need an interpreter.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Please speak. Hello. Hello, good evening. Yes, we can hear you. Please speak. And the city councilman. Yes. Good evening. My name is Xun Hua. Since only one minute is allowed for the comment, so I'm going to jump into the point right away. This warehouse project is based on the outdated zoning regulations. where historically zoned for light industrial use, subject area has been invoked to residential community, following the city approval of Baker Ranch, the Meadows, and the senior house facility. This area is no longer an isolated industrial zone. Urban planning must adapt to the physical reality rather than clinging to outdated zoning map. Placing 24-7 large-scale logistic warehouse And the possible has up material right against the residential backyard. It's a textbook violation of land use compatibility. Code must serve the community. And the kind of planning must pivot to protect the people living here.

I urge you to support. Thank you for your comments.

Our next commenter is Jayu Kai. Please let us know if you need an interpreter.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead and speak.

Hi, so this is Lucy, and good evening. Tonight I want to address the proposed statement of overriding considerations. On this CEQA, overriding considerations are not a blank check. They're not a shortcut. California Public Resources Code Section 21002 says that a public agency should not approve a project as proposed if feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures are available to substantial reduce significant environmental impacts. Section 21081 also requires specific findings. If the city wants to approve a project with significant impacts, it must first show the impacts has been avoided or mitigated. For that, the mitigation measures and alternatives are truly invisible. That has not happened here. The city has not fully considered major mitigation measures.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next commenter is Li Ting Li. Please let us know if you need an interpreter.

Good evening. My name's Li Ting. My question concerns the statement of overriding considerations. The final EIR identified significant and avoidable impacts, yet the city concluded that anticipated public benefit outweighed those impacts. What specific benefits support that conclusion, and what objective evidence or analysis supports this estimate? How do we account for the fact that the nearby residents would experience immediately under certain impacts? Well, many of the anticipated benefits remain future projections. And if the people receive those benefits are not the same people bearing those impacts, how would the difference reflect in the city's balancing analysis? Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our last commenter is Jane Chen. Please let us know if you need an interpreter.

Thank you. Good evening. The EIR shows this project requires modifying five public intersections just to handle heavy truck hence. That's proof the massive demand it will place on our infrastructure. Maintaining an acceptable level of service is not enough. The EIR ignores a critical question. Who pays for the accelerator wear and tear on our roads? Without answers, Lake Forest taxpayers will foot the bill. I ask the council to ensure every operational conditions is measurable, transparent, and legally binding. Protect our infrastructure, our taxpayers, and our futures. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Mayor, I do have one more public speaker in-house, and that is Sharon Wang.

okay go ahead and step up to the podium mayor and council members please do not look at this project in isolation on the sequel guideline section 15 130 the city must consider whether a project contributed to accumulate impact is significant. Our community will not experience this project alone. We will experience this project together with the Western vehicle, more traffics, more trucks, more diesel pollution, more noisy, more pressure on emergency service, and more industrial development around the enterprise way. IF OFFICE AND IND PROPERTY ARE GRADUALLY BEING CONVERTED INTO WAREHOUSE MANUFACTURING AND TRACK SERVING INDUSTRY USING NEXT TO HOMES, THEY SHOULD NOT BE PROVED ONE AT A TIME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

I BELIEVE THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

Okay, so thank you for your interpreting and thank you for your comments. I will now close.

I have just a quick statement. I need to amend my ex parte statement that I made after seeing Chris here for a long, long time ago. We actually did have a meeting, so I wanted to amend my ex parte conversation and just announce that I did meet at a breakfast meeting with Chris for a short Tim pipe last year. So I just want to amend my ex parte. Thank you.

Okay, now I will now close the public hearing. The City Council will now deliberate on the appeal. Colleagues.

Yeah, I'd like the map to be brought up or the plot plan with the measurements from the houses to the driveway. It's been brought up a few times, the distance from the Meadows Homes on Barwood to the building. According to the footage here, from the back lots, it's 150 feet to the back parking lot, and it looks like it's another 100 feet to the closest proximity to the building. So the fact that everybody, there's been comments made tonight, 80 feet, 82, 100, IT IS NEAR OR OVER 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL BUILDING OF THE WAREHOUSE FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO GO ON. IS THAT TRUE? WHAT IS THAT? I AM ASKING STAFF.

THE BUILDING IS ABOUT 150 TO 160 FEET AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES. THAT IS TO THE BUILDING. ON THIS AERIAL HERE, IT IS SHOWING THE EXISTING SITE, AND I HAVE OVERLAYED THE SITE PLAN FOR THE BUILDING. THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT SHOW THE RESIDENTIAL. WE CAN SHOW BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE EXISTING SITE AND THE the new building. So that blue line is the new building. So it is about 150 to 160 feet. That is from the building to the residential property. Okay.

I got you. So 150 feet. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for your comments. Appreciate that. I'm going to try and go through. I try to keep notes just to keep it all organized here. The property value issue, I'm not sure who I'm directing this towards, so I'm not... That's not a CEQA matter, right? So that's something that somebody, I guess, could consider, but it is not CEQA as it applies to this project.

Yes, that's correct. As Ms. Winters-Wyke previously said, that is not analyzed by CEQA. It's also not an issue that is analyzed by the findings required to be made with this SDP. The council's looking at health, safety, welfare, compatibility, zoning, general plan, but we don't look at economics at all.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I just want to just get those questions answered for me. There was a comment made that this project did not consider, the speaker said three other sites or two, whatever it was. Can somebody provide a little information as to the context for this EIR relative to other projects?

Most certainly. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Council Member Tettemer, the EIR did do a cumulative impacts analysis for each and every environmental factor that was analyzed in the environmental impact report. It did specifically call out sites one and two in the Western Real Co. on the Western Railco property. It also did look at other industrial development, including past, present, and probable future development in the project area of effects. So all of the past, present, and probable future development in this area was captured as part of the cumulative impacts analysis.

OK, THANK YOU. I GUESS SIMILAR TO THE RISING INSURANCE PREMIUMS, AGAIN, THAT'S NOT A CEQA ISSUE, NOT REALLY PART OF TONIGHT'S DELIBERATIONS, I THINK, UNLESS SOMEBODY TELLS ME OTHERWISE, IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO CEQA. THAT'S CORRECT. I'M GOING TO HOLD THERE FOR NOW. IF I HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

MR. MAYOR, JUST A QUICK REMINDER, IN THE CITY COUNCIL POLICIES, SPECIFICALLY THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MANAGEMENT POLICY, THERE IS A SECTION CALLED ADJOURNMENT, AND IT STATES, AT 930 P.M. IT IS CURRENTLY 932, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE BY MOTION AND VOTE WHETHER THE MEETING SHOULD CONTINUE OR IF THE MEETING SHOULD CONCLUDE AND ANY REMAINING ITEMS BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

OK, I'll make the motion that I'll send you that. And I'll say the motion that we continue. Second, let's vote. Well, thank you, Madam City Manager.

We're not concerned about the title of what we're voting on here. OK, I'm not sure.

That motion to continue does pass unanimously.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to share a little history of our city. Remember the past, challenge the future. This area used to be industrial because it's under the flat pass of former Oto'o Air Force Base. And 30-some years ago, people tried to convert to international airport. The community leader fought so hard for it. So today, we have an upscale community, Prosper, Baker Ranch, Meadows, Parkside, Suriname, along with more to come. And because community leaders 30 years ago fought so hard, we didn't become another Segundo. we didn't become another El Segundo all Ontario. But today we are proposing a gigantic oversized warehouse here. And we have more warehouse coming up. So are we becoming El Segundo again? So I will ask other council member the direction, the vision for this community here. What do you want our community become? I understand there's a technicality here, but at the end of the day, it's required overriding statement here, whether it's bringing enough benefits to this community. That's my words here. Okay, Doug.

I wanted to check with our senior planner and our representative from BBK. is that my understanding is that whenever we have any kind of a development project and we go through this EIR and CEQA process is that the Meadows itself would have had very similar unavoidable mitigation situations in terms of greenhouse gas and vehicle trips and things like that. Am I on the right page with that? We don't have the EIR obviously for the meadows, I don't think, but I'm just thinking other EIRs that I've seen for other development projects, it seems like these two particular items, which are of concern, but you can't mitigate some things and it's basically whether you're building homes or you're putting up a strip center or you're putting up a warehouse. Am I accurate in any way on that?

YES, YOU ARE ACCURATE IN THAT THE MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ITSELF DID INVOLVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THERE WAS ACTUALLY A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED TEARING FROM THE OSA PROGRAM EIR SINCE THAT SITE WAS ONE OF THE OSA SITES THAT WE ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR WHEN THE MARINE, EL TORO MARINE NOISE CONTOURS WERE LIFTED FROM THE CITY. AN EIR WAS PREPARED FOR THE MEADOWS. THAT EIR DID FIND SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AND WITH RESPECT TO GREENHOUSE GAS on both thresholds, so both consistency with plans and mass emissions. So in our particular circumstance that we're considering tonight for the IPT project, mass emissions are not significant and unavoidable for this warehouse project. It's just the consistency with plans that's kicking us into the significant and unavoidable territory because of the VMT So in the Meadows EIR, we did have to override for GHG for both mass emissions and planned consistency, as well as ag impacts.

Thank you, and just like when I moved into my house in Portola Hills years ago across the way where we had a really nice view, our statement of notification of buying the house was that there was gonna be potential track homes, there was gonna be a trailer park, all these kind of things, and of course we saw that, but never knew if that was really ever going to occur. And I understand we're presenting the process and information here against an emotional situation for homeowners. So coming up and look at all of our subject matter experts that have provided this, the extensive work that's been done to take into account all these different things that are by people who really understand this kind of thing, and then looking at an overall view of it is where we're kind of battling with our decision on how we come up with this. But I just wanted to point out for, again, our Meadows folks, as part of the staff report, we had information about their disclosure that We went from an agricultural nursery to the Meadows as a residential and they signed their papers and bought the home that adjacent to them were a number of different things including light industrial which would include warehouses or manufacturing or things like that. Probably everybody may have read that and decided, well, that's never gonna happen, that's great, even though they had the industrial buildings already there. So I understand it's difficult to kind of juxtapose these things and mitigate them, but we have to look at what's been done, what is a compatible resource and use of this property, and go with that. So thank you for the clarification.

Thank you. Madam City Manager, since you're the longest tenured person here, I've heard people come up and talk about these warehouses explosions and things like that. In your time working with the city, how many times have we come to a project like this and THE RESIDENTS COME WITH ALL THESE FEARS. I'LL USE THE, LIKE MOUNTAIN VIEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING. PEOPLE SAID ALL THESE THINGS WERE GOING TO COME BECAUSE THAT WAS HAPPENING. IN ALL THE TIMES THAT YOU'VE BEEN IN A COUNCIL MEETING, I'M SORRY TO PUT YOU ON A SPOT, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WHAT THE RESIDENTS FEARED COME TRUE? SORRY TO PUT YOU ON A SPOT.

Well, that's a pretty broad question, so I'll limit my answer to the Mountain View apartments. You know, there are a lot of concerns about what that was going to do to the surrounding area, concerns about, you know, parking and unmanaged property and so forth. BUT ONCE THE PROJECT WAS BUILT, IT HAS ACTUALLY REALLY IMPROVED THE AREA AROUND THE POST OFFICE. AND SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, I REALIZE THERE'S A LOT OF EMOTION ATTACHED TO THIS AND THERE'S SOME UNCERTAINTIES, BUT IN THE CASE OF THE MOUNTAIN VIEW PROJECT, IT DID TURN OUT TO BE A POSITIVE THING FOR THE COMMUNITY.

OKAY. SO LIKE I SAID, I DO HEAR THE CONCERNS. BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE APPLICANT has went above and beyond. They did just about everything that they were asked and more. And with what's going in, it's gonna be less, because a lot of the worries are the VMT and the GHG. And one of the questions I asked Jennifer was, the current building now, would it be staffed, the numbers would be higher than what we're putting in. Okay, you have something?

I'VE LIVED IN LAKE FOREST A LONG TIME AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS COME THROUGH THE CITY AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF NEW PROJECTS THAT WE WEREN'T TOTALLY SURE HOW IT WAS GOING TO AFFECT TRAFFIC OR THE COMMUNITY. BUT THE FACT THAT I THINK MARK LOGISTICS HAS GONE FAR ABOVE WHAT IS NEEDED TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS. I THINK THAT THE WALL, THE TREES, AMENDMENTS THAT THEY MADE FOR CONCESSIONS THAT THEY WOULD MAKE TO PLEASE AND MAKE THIS A BETTER BUILDING THAT IT IS NOW IS EVIDENT IN TONIGHT'S HEARING. I THINK THAT THE RESIDENTS CAME UP WITH MANY CONCERNS THAT ARE HYPOTHETICAL AT THIS POINT, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CONCERNS IN THEIR POINT, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY BROUGHT IN SPECIALISTS FOR LIGHTING, THEY BROUGHT IN SPECIALISTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, THEY BROUGHT IN THE BEST I THINK IT WEIGHS BENEFIT TO THE CITY TO APPROVE AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RULING AND SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION UPHOLD THE SEQUA AND APPROVE THE OVERRIDE. SO THE FACT IS THAT WE MOVE THIS FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY OF CITY OF LAKE FOREST. AND I'VE SAID IT MANY TIMES THAT IF A CITY STAYS STAGNANT, IT'S LIKE A STAGNANT POOL. IT'S A STAGNANT POND. AND LIFE CEASES TO EXIST. NEW INNOVATED BUILDINGS THAT WILL CREATE NEW JOBS FOR THE COMMUNITY AND BE A PLACE FOR NOT ONLY OUR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BUT FOR HIGH QUALITY WORKERS AT THE NEW BUILDINGS. SO MY MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE MOTION AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING. I THANK THE COMMUNITY FOR THEIR CONCERNS BUT WE AS THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST HAVE LOOKED AT THIS AND I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR GOING over what they needed to do to make this a better project. And so on behalf of my views on this, I think that the mitigations on traffic, the mitigations on traffic coming in, the expansions on the corners, they've done everything that we've asked. And so my motion would be to uphold the Planning Commission's ruling.

Hold on a second.

I will second the staff recommendation as submitted.

if i may i'm sorry i have another question that i missed in my notes there was several speakers that raised concern about the fact that we don't know who's going to be there and therefore it's really inappropriate or deficient or whatever, not their word, mine, but can you speak to, I know you touched on it earlier, but just to reinforce that message about the approach used for an assumption as to who would be in there, what type of business, whatever that might be. I think you know where I'm going with that, just to clarify.

WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT KNOW WHO THE TENANT IS, THIS IS NOT ABNORMAL. SO VERY FREQUENTLY WHEN COMMERCIAL PROJECTS, RETAIL PROJECTS, INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS COME FORWARD, THEY COME FORWARD WITH AN APPLICATION TO BUILD A SHELL TO BUILD THE BUILDING WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF WHO IS GOING TO ACTUALLY OCCUPY THAT BUILDING. FROM TIME TO TIME, THERE ARE CERTAIN OPERATORS OR OWNER OPERATORS THAT COME TO TOWN, THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, THEY WANT TO BUILD A BUILDING FOR THEIR OPERATION, AND WE MIGHT KNOW WHO THOSE TENANTS ARE, LIKE OAKLEY, FOR EXAMPLE. WHEN OAKLEY CAME TO TOWN, THEY WANTED TO BUILD THEIR HEADQUARTERS HERE. WE KNEW THAT OAKLEY WOULD BE OPERATING IN THAT BUILDING. That's not typical. Often what we see is what we have before you tonight. So the way that the analysis is conducted in the EIR is to look at the site plan, the overall assignment of square footage that is afforded to each type of use. So here it's a warehouse project with some office space, some office square footage, and a potential manufacturing use could go into this space, like R&D, for example, or pharmaceutical, biomedical, as the applicant addressed in their presentation. So to balance the fact that we don't know who the tenant is, we used that mix of manufacturing, warehousing, and office to identify what the assumptions would be for how the product would work. If the operator comes in, if a tenant comes in and needs something that's wildly different than what is provided in the built product, they would have to come in and file an application with the city to make modifications to that building. They couldn't just make those modifications. So the tenant's identity doesn't necessarily drive the environmental analysis. What drives the analysis is the actual use and the square footage of that use.

So this is not an uncommon practice. I mean, I could think of a mall as maybe not a great example, but the fact is a lot of businesses come and go, whether it's a commercial property like this or a mall or a strip mall for that matter, people come and go, businesses come and go. So things will change, right?

Exactly. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. I just want to get back to, thank you. The motion here, I'm looking for legal counsel here. Do we need to include if I'm understanding the motion, is one of those pieces need to be to deny the appeal?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. What I heard in that motion really was staff's recommendation. And if the motion is staff's recommendation, as noted in the staff report, then we're going to be okay. That includes the SDP and the EIR. We could also include the denial of the appeal, but to be honest, this is a de novo hearing. So those two resolves are really what's most important. So if we move staff's recommendation, then we're clean.

And so that would be to adopt the CEQA environmental findings, I think is number one, high level paraphrasing here, and number two is to approve the site development permit.

That's correct, and the appeal denial is actually in that resolution, so it's inherent in the motion. I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE POSSIBLE COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN BEFORE A VOTE IS TAKEN. YES.

APOLOGIES, MAYOR. WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENTER WHO DID NOT HEAR THEIR NAME WHEN IT WAS CALLED THE FIRST TIME AROUND. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I WILL OPEN THE HEARING.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS JIM WONG.

Mr. President, members of the House of Representatives, good evening. I am Jim. I live in Meadows, which is very close to this project. Tonight, you are not only deciding whether to approve a project, but also carrying out the responsibility of the California Environmental Quality Act. to ensure that this decision is based on a comprehensive, complete and legal environmental review. As mentioned earlier, this project still has important problems in terms of air quality, traffic, noise, accumulation, influence, and approval conditions, and has not been fully resolved. We are not against development, but development must be carried out by law and protect the health and community environment of residents. Thank you.

Honorable mayor council members, good evening. My name is Jim. I live very close by. I live in metals tonight. Everyone here tonight is not only approving a project, but also fulfilling their obligations given by the California environmental quality act. This will have to base on a total and complete transparent, uh, censorship environment. and on top of actual evidence. Just as pointed out before, this project has severe impact in terms of air quality, traffic, noise, and all sorts of regulation-related issues. And they are not yet solved. We're not against development, but development must be accordance of the law. So please do make the choice that protects

our neighborhood and our community thank you thank you for your comments and two more public commenters before you close the public hearing mayor um if ashley h and jackie chen can please come up to the podium

Good evening.

My question concerns the Council's independent review of this appeal. The Planning Commission approved this project only after requiring additional operating conditions. What information and analysis is the Council relying on in conducting its review tonight? Has any new technical study, updated environmental analysis, operational data, expert opinion, or other material information been added to the record since the Planning Commission hearing lake forest has other similar sites near residential neighborhoods could today's decision set a precedent for similar warehouse projects in the future if so how many other residential neighborhoods could eventually face the same situation before voting tonight please explain the basis for the council independent decision thank you thank you for your comment

Good evening, my name is Jackie Chan. I'm resident of the Meadows. I understand these conditions are intended to reduce impacts, but reducing impacts is not the same as fully addressing them. For example, one condition limits certain outdoor activities after 10 p.m. How did the city determine that 10 p.m. was the appropriate cutoff? DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCE NIGHTTIME DIFFERENTLY INCLUDING FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT WORKING SCHEDULES SO PLEASE CONSIDER THESE CONCERNS AS PART OF YOUR APPROVAL DECISION THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS THANK YOU MAYOR THAT'S IT AND YOU MAY CLOSE THE HEARING I WILL NOW CLOSE THE HEARING

TO CLARIFY STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THANKING SHISHE FOR EVERYBODY FOR COMING TONIGHT. WE HEAR YOU AND WE CARE ABOUT YOU. WE'RE NOT DONE WITH THIS AND SO THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT AND I THANK THE APPLICANTS FOR WORKING WITH THE CITY STAFF AND THE RESIDENTS TO MAKE THIS THE BEST PROJECT WE COULD.

I will second the staff recommendation. Okay, let's vote.

And the motion passes 4-1 with Council Member Yu voting no.

Okay, thank you. We will now move on to item number 10, public hearing. I will now open the public hearing. Madam City Clerk, please read the title of item number 10.

The title of item number 10 is the Lake Forest Municipal Code Amendments related to group homes, residential care facilities, and boarding houses.

Madam City Manager, please introduce this item.

Thank you, Mayor. Tonight we'll have a presentation Excuse me, by our planning manager, Amy Stonich. Amy, it's your turn.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Tonight I have a brief presentation for a zoning code amendment to group homes, residential care facilities, and boarding houses. Bear with me and I'll get my little clicker. As background, state law requires that cities treat state licensed group homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents as a single family residential use. In 2023, the city updated the municipal code to comply with housing element requirements by allowing residential care facilities serving seven or more residents in residential zones subject to objective standards. However, recent court cases and fair housing laws have clarified how cities may regulate group homes and residential care facilities. The proposed amendments would update the code to align with current legal requirements and prevent over concentration of facilities while continuing to allow facilities to operate within residential neighborhoods. The proposed code amendments include Title V, which creates new licensing procedures, operational standards, distancing requirements between group homes, renewal requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. Title IX revises permitted uses in residential zoning districts. New and revised definitions have been updated in both title amendments. Generally, a group home is a supportive residential facility for persons with disabilities, including sober living homes and residential care facilities. Residential care facilities are state licensed group homes that provide care, services, or treatment in a residential setting. Sober living homes are a group home for individuals recovering from substance abuse without licensed care. Integral facilities are two or more group homes under common ownership or management operating as a single operation. And a boarding house is a residence where multiple occupants reside under individual rental agreements, but it is not a group home or other supportive housing facility. In addition to the definitions noted, the key components of Title V amendments include a new group home licensing program requiring a city license for non-exempt group homes, operational standards including management plans, parking, safety measures, house manager requirements and code compliance. A 650 foot separation requirement between group homes to prevent over concentration of facilities in residential neighborhoods. And license renewal and enforcement with renewals required every two years and new inspection and revocation procedures. Existing facilities are required to obtain a license within 90 days. Generally, a group home license would be required for facilities operating within the city. However, state licensed facilities serving six or fewer residents would be exempt from the license requirement. As shown in this flow chart, a group home license would be required for all group homes with six or fewer residents, as well as facilities with seven or more in a multifamily area. License holders would also be required to comply with operational standards. The proposed Title IX zoning code amendments include updates to zoning regulations to align with the new ordinance. It adds and revises definitions and replaces references to residential care facility with the term group home throughout the residential zoning district regulations. Lastly, it more clearly prohibits boarding houses and integral facilities in residential zoning districts. On May 7th, the Planning Commission reviewed the amendments and recommended city council approval. So operators will be required to obtain the appropriate state or city license depending on the type of facility. Existing group homes will have 90 days after the ordinance is in effect to comply. There is some flexibility for demonstrated hardships. For example, if an operator is actively pursuing a state license but is waiting approval, the city could consider granting an extension of time. However, some existing facilities may not meet the proposed standards in cases where city spacing Requirements cannot be addressed. Relocation may be necessary to prevent over concentration. That concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay, thank you, colleagues. Okay, I have a couple questions. So if a group home, when we talk about enforcement, so if a group home has multiple disturbances in six, in the ordinance it says six disturbances within six months, correct? So say for instance, group home A has five disturbances in the first six months of this year. and it was one person creating it, and so they get rid of the problem child. Three months go by, and they get another resident that's problematic, and they create five more, but it doesn't fit in that six-month window. What are the residents around there supposed to think, or what do they do?

Well, of course, we wouldn't open an investigation and keep track of this information. We do have operational standards. We have requirements that manager information be kept on file and other mechanisms of keeping track of this information and creating and ensuring that the operations meet the code requirements.

Okay, so if a group home because the residents that live around these group homes are there for a long time. So this group home over years is just problematic. What is their recourse? What do we tell those residents?

If I can chime in, Mr. Mayor, there's actually two avenues at play here. The criteria that you're noting are actually criteria for revoking the group home license. So if there are a certain number of violations of the code within a certain period of time, the license can be revoked by the city, thereby ceasing the operation of that group home. IF FOR SOME REASON THE INCIDENTS FALL OUTSIDE OF THAT TIMEFRAME WHICH IS YOUR HYPOTHETICAL, WE ALWAYS HAVE OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT ABILITY AND THE ABILITY TO BRING A NUISANCE ACTION AGAINST ANY PROPERTY IN THE CITY. SO AGAIN, YOUR HYPOTHETICAL IS REALLY JUST GETTING AT OUR ABILITY TO REVOKE THE LICENSE WHICH IS VERY SPECIFIC VERSUS STANDARD CODE ENFORCEMENT AND NUISANCE ACTIONS.

Okay. And now with your distancing the 600 feet separation, say, you have two group homes on a on the same street, and not licensed, they're gonna get give them 90 days to get licensed. Are they gonna say are they are they gonna be able to both get them since they're already operating? Or are they going to make a move?

That's dependent upon which license they're getting so there's a state license in the city license The city license is the license which has the buffer requirement if they were to get a state license They would be exempt from the city license, okay?

so Then more well, I'll move the item I I WILL GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ACTUALLY, BEFORE WE DO THAT, I AM READY TO MOVE ON. THANK YOU. MADAM CITY CLERK, ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?

I HAVE NO IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTERS AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENTERS.

I WILL CLOSE IT. NOW I WILL MAKE THE MOTION.

I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

All right, let's vote.

The motion passes unanimously.

All right, we'll move on to items 11 through 13. Madam City Clerk, please read the title for item 11.

TITLE OF ITEM NUMBER 11 IS THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR CAVANAUGH PARK IMPROVEMENTS 25P08.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I WILL KEEP THIS VERY BRIEF. THIS IS AWARD FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR CAVANAUGH PARK IMPROVEMENTS. AS BACKGROUND, YOU'LL REMEMBER IN FEBRUARY COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR CAVANAUGH PARK AND DIRECTED STAFF TO INCORPORATE A PHASE CONSTRUCTION APPROACH. to accommodate the future El Toro I-5 interchange. This is the conceptual design that was approved. On the bottom image on the right side is where the I-5 El Toro interchange would impact the park. The city issued an RFP for design services for a two-phase design. PHASE ONE WOULD INCORPORATE THE MAJORITY OF THE PARK TO INCORPORATE ANY OF THE REMOVAL OF THE HILL CONSTRUCTION OF THE BASICALLY THE IMAGE AT THE TOP AND PART OF THE IMAGE ON THE BOTTOM AND HAVE A SECOND PHASE FOR AFTER THE EL TORO I-5 INTERCHANGE IS COMPLETE IN 2032 TO 2035 IS OCT'S CURRENT ESTIMATE. We issued an RFP for those design services and we had nine firms propose. RIC Engineering was selected as the most qualified consultant. Staff's recommendation is to award a design service contract to RIC Engineering for not to exceed amount of $589,107. And next steps, we would initiate that design contract with RIC Engineering and would look to present to council a 50% design feedback. IN ABOUT SIX MONTHS IS WHAT RICK ENGINEERING WAS SAYING. THAT WOULD BE ABOUT FEBRUARY OF 2027. THEY ARE TRYING TO GET IT CLOSER TO DECEMBER, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY PROMISES. SO THEIR CURRENT ANTICIPATION IS AROUND FEBRUARY OF 2027. THE DESIGN CAN CHANGE FOR BOTH PHASES BASED ON COUNCIL FEEDBACK AND THEN WE WOULD FINALIZE THE PHASES ONE AND TWO FOR DESIGNS. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

Just real quick, I want to make sure I confirm. The reason, part of the reason for choosing Rick was because they have personnel that are familiar with Caltrans type of regulations, construction and timing. I think that, is that correct?

Not only that, Rick is kind of a one-stop shop. They do civil, they've got the landscape architectural, they've got everything we really need.

Excellent, thank you.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO THE $589,000, IS THAT TO DESIGN THE ENTIRE PROJECT?

THAT IS FOR BOTH PHASES.

I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT GIVEN THAT HALF OF THAT PROJECT, I'M PICKING A NUMBER, IT MAY NOT BE HALF, BUT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF IT IS GOING TO SIT UNIMPROVED FOR How many years? Five, six, seven?

The plan isn't to have it be totally unimproved. The area where the impact is is where the current basketball court is. So some of the design would extend to that. A lot of the work for the environmental and things would be done in that first phase. The second phase would just be for the small portion that would be impacted. We will end up gaining a little bit of park when the I-5 interchange goes in. The cul-de-sac on Bridger get shortened. So part of that existing cul-de-sac would become park area. So we'll have a plan. There will be a transition phase for the phase two.

I WAS CONCERNED WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A PROJECT THAT DESIGNS THE ENTIRE SITE AND YET SOME PORTION OF THAT IS GOING TO SIT UNIMPROVED FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT IS. YOU TELL ME.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TALK WITH RICK ENGINEERING ABOUT WITH THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT. THEY COULD BRING SOME OF THE IN THE AREA OF IMPACT, DO A TEMPORARY an interim state where it wouldn't be unimproved, but it would be improved to a lower level that put the landscaping in and everything, but they wouldn't do any of the phase two amenities in that area. There will be some area that's impacted by the Caltrans.

They could just leave it as a green space for people to run their dogs.

which I'm fine with that, but we're having somebody spend money. We're going to spend money to design a piece of land that's going to sit basically fallow and unimproved for quite some time. So I like that idea, but I'm concerned about spending $589,000 when only a portion of that needs to be done for the part that's really going to be done now and then the phase two.

The breakdown Rick had was about half a million dollars is for phase one, which includes a lot of the upfront work for phase one and phase two. in the design portion, and phase two design is about $70,000.

Okay, so you're saying that if we were to reduce this by $70,000, that would be reflective of phase one?

That would be reflective of phase one.

And that design is that heavy on the phase one largely because of the hill?

The hill, environmental work, coordination with Caltrans, Utility work.

Okay, I'm just concerned that we're gonna have stuff that's gonna be sitting in a shelf for many, many years. I mean, I presume even SQL would have to be refreshed given how long that's gonna sit. Potentially. Right, but I'm just saying, but also a design could change, in which case we have somebody design something and we decide we're gonna go a different direction. So that concerns me a little bit. I don't know if there's a way to address that tonight, but I'd rather not have somebody spend a lot of time designing something which is gonna sit in a shelf basically sit for many years before it gets activated. So it just doesn't, for me, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's do that when the time is right. So that'd be my observation and we'll see where it goes. Thank you.

I kind of concur because of the amount of earth moving that's gonna be involved with that hill and leveling that whole park out. And then the sound wall between the five freeway and Lake Forest, it seems like we're kind of jumping ahead a little bit to where we have a phase one, maybe to where we could do the earth moving, but leave the playground towards El Toro Road alone.

And that's something we can work with Rick Engineering on coordinating between the phase one and phase two. And that's also why we would be bringing back the design at the 50% design level to where Rick can present what their phase one, phase two plans are and what would be in the impact area for phase two and what could be left alone in the impact area for phase two or what they're proposing for phase two and in an interim state.

but you haven't talked to them about that as of yet. And there's a lot of that part of the community, they use that park to walk through or walk their dogs through or play fetch. And we're talking.

These are the things we would get into with rig engineering through the design process. And that's also why we built in coming back to council at the 50% design level before anything is even constructed to get council feedback.

Thank you. Well, I won't be here when that conversation happens. WISH YOU ALL THE BEST ON THAT. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU HAVE SPECIFIC TASKS FOR PHASE ONE AND SPECIFIC TASKS FOR PHASE TWO, AND THAT STAFF CAN COME BACK AND SAY IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ACTIVATE THE SECOND TASK, MAYBE NOW, MAYBE YEARS FROM NOW.

WE DO HAVE THOSE TASKS IN THE PROPOSAL FOR MICROENGINEERING, AND IT IS A NOT TO EXCEED CONTRACT.

No, I understand that. I'm just concerned about spending money in a place that's gonna sit for five or seven years and have somebody spend a lot of design money, whatever it is, and not activate that in terms of actually doing something with it for many years. Because I think you said 2032, so five years minimally. I'd rather not see the money get spent because maybe at that point we have different thoughts about what would go down there, in which case we're starting over with a different design.

The city could also issue a tiered notice to proceed, giving RIC Engineering authorization to proceed on phase one and holding off on authorizing phase two.

And that's what I was suggesting. That'd be my, I'll make a motion to approve this with the idea that there's a task notion for phase one, phase two design that reflects that. I think you understand, is that clear enough in the eyes of staff?

YES, I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEND MONEY DESIGNING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT NOT EVER BE BUILT.

OR MAYBE THE COMMUNITY HAS A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THEY WANT TO GO BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT AND THAT COULD CHANGE.

CORRECT. 2032 IS A LONG TIME FROM NOW. I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WE COULD DO A NOTICE TO PROCEED PRIOR TO STARTING THE PHASE 2 DESIGN AND I THINK THAT WOULD HELP WITH THAT.

THAT'S MY MOTION.

THAT SEEMS LIKE A FRIENDLY MOTION BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT AREA OF LAKE FOREST IS UNDERSERVED BY PARKS.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK?

I HAVE NO IN-PERSON, AND WE HAVE NO ONLINE REQUESTS TO SPEAK.

NOW I'LL SECOND IT. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 12. MADAM CITY CLERK, PLEASE READ THE TITLE OF ITEM 12.

THE TITLE OF ITEM 12 IS THE DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL TERM LIMITS.

THANK YOU. MADAM CITY MANAGER, PLEASE INTRODUCE THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. TONIGHT WE HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY, MAL RICHARDSON.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. The city's code limits a council member to two lifetime terms. The city council previously reviewed and rejected the possibility of increasing council term limits. At that same meeting, the city council directed staff to return with information regarding potential updates to the city's ordinance, including a four year cooling off period after a council member has served two consecutive terms. In line with council directions, staff has drafted the ordinance and resolutions required to place a measure on the ballot providing for this cooling off period. If council were to adopt the resolutions before this evening, a measure will be placed on the ballot that would do the following. The current lifetime limit of two terms served at any time would be replaced by a new limit of two consecutive terms followed by a required four year break in service. After that four year break, an individual could serve two additional consecutive terms followed by a second four year break and so forth and so on. In other words, there would no longer be a lifetime limit number of terms served as long as a four year break occurred between consecutive terms.

I do not understand this at all, except for reasons that I really don't want to accept. You've served your term. We appreciate these years that you've put into it. But it's time to allow other volunteers, as we expressed earlier, we invite volunteers other volunteers, other people of our communities to come forward and serve. Thank you for your time, but this is too much, and I will be very disappointed to see this go through. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next public commenter is Jay Cost.

Thank you. This issue was heard earlier this year, and I was told by, I believe, the mayor that the issue is dead, that this was not coming back. But as it is here again, I think it would also be good to have a cap on the maximum number of years in office, partly because many, many folks don't pay much attention to local elections, let alone national elections. So it's easy for any incumbent candidates to simply surf the wave of apathy. And with respect, I think eight years of service can be enough. And then other folks can come in, bring their ideas. And like the lady said, we do appreciate your service. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments.

Next public commenter is Noma Bates.

Hi, my name's Doma Bates, and I've been a resident since 1975. And I do appreciate your work, but we need fresh blood. We need more people. We have a larger city now. We have a lot more people. We should be able to pull on the new, get new ideas, get our direction going in maybe a different way. But we appreciate your service, but it's time to go on and let other people SERVE US AND NOT GET STAGNANT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

LAST IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTER IS BOB HOLTZCALL. ARE YOU STILL HERE? WE WILL MOVE ON TO ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENTERS AND I WILL HAND IT OVER TO ASSISTANT CITY CLERK BOLTZ.

THE NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS RANDY JOHNSON.

Boy, am I ever glad I stayed home tonight. You know, folks, I contacted the city clerk Merritt and had what I thought was a pretty basic but critical question on whether this term limit is going to affect the future terms of U, CERBO, and PENCUENIO and whether they would get extended terms because this term would be voided and then they would get add-on terms uh... after that they'll never vote vote if it would actually pass by the voters that need to be clarified because the attempt of this is not to give any extended terms to anybody who's currently on the council a miss merrick cannot answer my question i don't know why i guess there's nothing in the document legal document about that nor is there anything in the staff report that's a critical question and i agree with the other commenters before me You know, we don't need Scott Voigt's back in the council again. Trust me on that, okay? And we need fresh blood.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Johnston.

Mayor? Hold on. Any more online commenters? Sorry.

And the next one is Julia Mangione.

Good evening, everyone. I was here with you earlier in person. I'm grateful for this online opportunity. Thank you to my fellow residents of Lake Forest who stayed to give comment on this item. I was with you all for the meeting in January, where we discussed this. There is no need to continue this discussion. More than 36 people commented in person, plus one person online comments or electronically submitted comments in January, and we made it abundantly clear. We want the city ordinance to remain as it stands, as was voted on in 2018. You quoted and honored the declaration of independence earlier this evening, which says that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. You do not have our consent to change the term limits at this time. Do not waste our city's time, energy, and resources on an election. Let the 2018 city ordinance stand. Thank you for your time.

T, hang on a second.

That's it, Mayor.

Okay. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to consult with our city attorney just to confirm what you announced with this term limit situation is that there's no resetting of the clock. So to the caller, Mr. Johnson, there's no way that myself or Mayor Pecaino could have any more terms than our current two terms that we have.

that would be the end of it if we we don't you know approve this is that correct yes as as said during my verbal report that's exactly correct except in so far as there was a four-year cooling off period than anybody any council member past present future could run after that four-year queen operator this would not extend anyone's term limits as currently constant great thanks for clarifying that hmm colleagues

OBVIOUSLY THE PEOPLE DID COME OUT AND YOU ALL SPOKE AND WE HEARD YOU AND I FEEL THAT THIS IN THE SPIRIT OF TERM LIMITS GIVES EIGHT YEARS TO NEW CANDIDATES. THERE WILL BE NEW CANDIDATES COME ON AND IF THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING THE CITY WELL, I DON'T FEEL ANY OF US HAVE A LONGING TO COME BACK. SO THE FACT IS BUT WE DO LOVE LAKE FOREST. IT GIVES AN OPTION TO WHERE IF THE CITY IS GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, MOST CITIES DON'T HAVE A LIFETIME BAN ON IT. SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS, AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

BEFORE YOU GO, WE GAVE YOU YOUR TIME TO SPEAK. NOW IT'S OUR TIME TO SPEAK. PLEASE SHOW SOME RESPECT. COLLEAGUES? I have no desire to come back. As a matter of fact, Mr. Johnson can take my place. Well, I'm just saying, no, he can, he can take my place. So I have no desire to come back no matter what the cooling off period. And, you know, even though he was trying to get me two extra terms after this one, uh, no, I have no desire to do this. Um, so, uh, you know, 2028 I'll campaign for him. So, um,

All right, thank you. So by way of background, the city was formed in 91 and managed to survive without term limits till 2014. That sounds like 23 years. And I think a lot of people felt the city was very well run. It still is well run. That's why maybe some of you actually moved here because you said this is a well run city, fiscally very solid. So this is a well run city. That's not an accident. Um, so 23 years we managed to survive, correct me if I'm wrong, but 23 years without a term limit. Is that fair? Yeah. Then in 2014, I was not on the council at the time. In 2014, the council put on the ballot a 12 year limit with a sit out for one cycle, which at that time would have been two years because we didn't have districts. Correct me if I'm wrong. Okay, so that's an accurate statement. So from 2014 to 2018, that 12 year sit out a cycle notion was alive and well. And so that was there. In 2018, that's when the two term limit lifetime ban came to be. So the fact is the majority of the city's been under this idea of either no term limits or sit out for a cycle, which again is not two years anymore, it's four years now. My personal history here is I was first elected in 2004 called 2005 when I took the chair and served two terms I chose to leave of my own volition not because of term limits I left on my own I went back to school to get my master's degree But I will tell you in 2018 when I came up for air having spent my time doing my masters people said will you please come back and Because this place was a mess. This council, not this council, the council that was here was a mess. And people said, will you please come back? Because we need to try and get this back in control. And believe me, I gave a lot of thought, because I knew the dynamic that was going on at the council and the actors that were here, and it was not a pretty sight. And I had a number of conversations with my wife, said, we've given eight years, two years on planning commission and eight more on council. Do we really need to go back? But I heeded the advice of people, or the request of people who said, please come back, this is out of control. Had those term limits been in place, I couldn't have done that. And then we're left to wonder what would have been the city at that time. given the trajectory it was on, it was not pretty. The city was in the newspaper for all the wrong reasons. Recalls spending a lot of your money to do recalls. So I don't come from your position, which is fair. There's nothing wrong with that. I come from a different place, but I saw what was happening here, and I took to heart the people who said, please come back, and I've had many people come up and thank me for doing it. because this place needed to get a little bit of itself back. So had those term limits that people now have, I couldn't have done that. And again, we can speculate what would have come. But I believe that the first 23 years, the city was very well run. It still is, but still well run without term limits. The other thing which maybe is relevant, maybe not, but if you go to an auto mechanic, Been there for eight years, does a great job. You know what, you did a great job for eight years. I'm going a different direction. Not because you didn't deserve eight more years, just because, it's just time for a change. I need fresh blood, I need new ideas. Or do you stay with them because they've done a good job? Same with your doctor. You've done a good job and I have a relationship with you and you've done right by the community. or by me in your service. So this idea that we should just jettison people that do bring something to the table, I don't understand. We have term limits, they're called elections. If you don't like anybody, don't vote for them and campaign for their opposition. That's what I believe makes the most sense. Term limits, I think, tend to be motivated by people who are emotionally motivated by what's there now, and it tends to be a dislike. My memory of Sacramento was people didn't like Willie Brown at the time, so that animated people to say, we need term limits, because they were sick and tired of Willie Brown. And so term limits were born. But I've had conversations with people, and I tell them Sacramento has term limits, and the federal government does not. Which one's working better for you? I have a hard time seeing the difference. At the end of the day, you wanna get quality people in there. And they're up for election. Every time they're up, vote them in or vote them out. But the idea that you would get rid of people just because it's time for you to go, I don't understand that. I've never been a fan of term limits. Vote them out if you don't like them. But my personal history is one where I've seen what can happen when you get fresh blood. Yeah, I don't have a time limit, thank you. But I've seen what happens when you make change and you always assume it's going to be better. But we've seen in this city, it is not a guarantee. And there's a lot of other cities that had similar experiences. It's not a guarantee that the grass is greener. It isn't. And you're stuck with them for four years and you're gonna, some people would hate the fact that you have to live with that for four years too. Well, I'm just saying there's another, in four years, somebody can run and try to get them out. And that was my story. I did run in 2018 and was successful. So, fair, but this is also an expression of a societal ability to rethink itself. It rethought it in 2014, and I don't hear anybody saying, well, we had it settled in 2014. I didn't hear any of you say it was settled in 2014, 12 years and then set out a cycle. But you like the one in 2018, but you choose to ignore the fact there was one in 2014. So it seems like a bit of an argument of convenience. I support this because I think that if this does derail in some form, and I hope it never does, and I'm 65 right now, do I think I'm coming back at 69? I do not. I do not. but I wouldn't want to preclude one of my colleagues from the opportunity to come back and say, this thing has gotten out of hand and I got some gas in the tank and I'm prepared to come back and see if I can help get things back on track. The city is well run, but I would say that there was a number of years there where things were not pretty, and city was in the paper for a lot of the wrong reasons. And I was happy to come back and do what I could to try and restore some order here. It's actually something I'm glad we did, because my wife and I had many conversations about it as to whether it made sense to come back. And I appreciated her support and said, yes, let's do it. So I do support this, because I think there's a lot of reason to do it. And the community will decide. They can decide. That's what the elections are about. The community can decide if they like it or don't. If they don't, don't vote for it. It's fine. Thank you.

Well, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show? So, like I said before, I have zero desire to, for another term, at any point in my life. But, in... when I was the admin deputy here in Lake Forest. I started that in 2014. From 2014 to 2018, I got laughed at by my other admin deputy colleagues across the other 12 contract cities that we had a clown show for a council. And that's when I started thinking, maybe I should run because I rarely hold my thoughts with people. So I was approached to be on the Park and Traffic Commission and i saw just the nastiness of those that were on council and that encouraged me to run i find it interesting that four of us up here ran unopposed at one point and the person that apparently everybody hates the most ran unopposed twice so i think that MY COLLEAGUE COUNCIL MEMBER SAID WE STILL HAVE TO PUT THIS UP FOR A VOTE. PEOPLE HAVE TO VOTE FOR THIS IN NOVEMBER. IT'S GOING TO COST US $8,500. SO I STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE I JUST STRUGGLED WITH IT.

SO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. Well, I'll just go on public record as well, is that I'm going to serve my two terms, and I have no desire to serve beyond that. I've done a lot of service in other areas, and I plan to after I finish here. So I'll publicly go on record and say, you're not going to see me if this passes. You're not going to see me out four years out and then come back four years later. So I do believe that it does give us flexibility for this kind of situation that Councilmember Tettemere and his experience and his wisdom on this I think is very valid. So I appreciate the discussion on back and forth. I appreciate the comments from our gallery that's hung around all night long too, but I'm gonna be in support of this as well.

Go ahead and make a motion, Scott. Is there a motion to stop it? No.

I will move to approve staff recommendation on item 12. Do I need to?

Yeah, just to be clear, that would include the two resolutions that are attached to the agenda item. Is that correct?

That's my motion. Okay. Thank you.

I'll second the motion.

Okay, let's vote.

THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 13, MADAM CITY MANAGER, PLEASE READ THE TITLE OF ITEM 13.

I AM GOING TO READ IT. I HAVE A PART. ITEM 13, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COMMISSIONER COMPENSATION. WE WILL HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. At recent meetings, the council directed staff to prepare an item for a future council meeting addressing a possible increase in city council and commissioner compensation. The city council's current compensation is $704 per month, while commissioners receive a stipend of $118 per meeting. California Government Code Section 36516A4 allows the City Council to periodically adjust its compensation by ordinance using one of two methods. The first method is to increase it by an amount not exceeding 5% per year since the last salary adjustment. The second method is to increase by an amount equal to inflation In this case, since January 1st of 2024, based on the CPI. Under the first method, the council may increase compensation by up to 5% for each calendar year since the last adjustment which occurred in 2008. This results in 18 eligible calendar years. Accordingly, the council may increase each member's salary by up to 90%. That's 5% times 18 years. PRODUCING A MAXIMUM INCREASE OF $633.60 FOR A TOTAL OF $1,337.60 PER MONTH. THE SECOND METHOD WHICH FOLLOWS CALIFORNIA CPI WOULD ALLOW AN INCREASE OF UP TO 4.97% PRODUCING A MAXIMUM INCREASE OF $34.98 FOR A SALARY OF 738.98 PER MONTH. IN SUMMARY, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE ABLE TO ADJUST ITS CURRENT COMPENSATION PER CALIFORNIA CODE TO ANY AMOUNT BETWEEN $738.98 AND $1337.60 PER MONTH. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY INCREASE COMMISSIONER COMPENSATION BASED ON APPLICABLE CPI WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $124 PER MEETING AND NOT TO EXCEED $248 PER MONTH PER COMMISSIONER. Finally, government code section 36516.5 doesn't allow any change in compensation to take effect until at least one council member commences a new term. Thus, should the council adopt the proposed ordinance, the change to council compensation would take effect in December 2026. The same timing would apply to increases or any increase in commissioner compensation, not based on state law, but based on local regulations. Staff has prepared an ordinance increasing the council's compensation using method one, that is 5% times the number of years since the last increase. The ordinance applies the maximum allowable increase based on all 18 eligible years since the last adjustment. The council may adjust the compensation increase in the proposed ordinance by either reducing the number of years in the formula between one and 18 years or by using method two. Staff has also prepared a proposed resolution increasing commissioner compensation as previously outlined. Staff's recommendation is for the council to provide further direction regarding council and commissioner compensation OR TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. THAT IS STAFF'S REPORT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. BEFORE WE DO THAT, MADAM CITY CLERK, ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?

WE DO HAVE ONE IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTER, AND THAT IS SHARON BRYMER. SHARON, ARE YOU HERE? All right, Sharon is not here, so we do have public comment online, and I will pass it on to Assistant City Clerk Bolts. And that public commenter is Mr. Randy Johnson.

Boy, you golden boys just really crack me up. First of all, you think you're irreplaceable, like someday you're going to have to come back to save us. We have a city of 85,000 people, for God's sake, okay? We don't need you anymore. And, in fact, I'm kind of tired of looking at all your faces, to be quite honest with you. But now you want to give yourself a huge pay raise, a 90% pay raise from 704 up to over $1,300 a month, okay? You know how Mission Viejo pays their council members $1,000 a month? Irvine, $880 a month. Laguna Hills, $624 a month. And it goes down from there. okay, the other South Orange County cities, all the way down to $300 a month, and you want to increase your salaries to over $1,300, man, you really have massive egos. Why don't you put that up to a vote of the people? Or take a survey and ask us if we think you deserve that raise. That's a democracy, but you want to give yourself a raise. I could never give myself a raise.

I believe that is it, Mayor.

Well, since I was the maker of this, brought this up. So if you look at my schedule or my calendar, there's not a day that goes by that I don't either do multiple things or make multiple phone calls. That is Monday through Sunday, every day of every week. My wife looks at me funny when I am in the backyard with my headphones on, just pacing, talking to somebody. As the mayor, I know that I feel like James Brown. I'm the hardest working mayor in show business because there's not a day that goes by that I don't do something. I'm getting dressed for multiple things. And I'm not saying I should be compensated, but It's in the code that we should get a 5% raise, or a 5% CPI, or whatever the CPI is for that year, and we haven't done it forever. I don't know why. JUST KIDDING. SO I PROPOSE THIS BECAUSE, YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER CITIES, SOME CITIES GET MEDICAL. SOME PEOPLE GET A CAR STIPEND. SO IT'S SOME OF IT THAT YOU DON'T SEE WHEN YOU SEE THEIR PAY. BUT WHEN YOU WANT TO START TALKING ABOUT THESE OTHER CITIES THAT ARE SURROUNDING US, WE'RE NOT IN THE HOLE FINANCIALLY. Mission V is in the hole. Laguna Hills is in the hole. Irvine is in the hole. We're not. Our council members are pretty good. I think we should catch up. And for future council members, if they want to raise it, they can raise it. But I think that we should do a raise. For as much as I do, I think I deserve this. And I don't usually say anything that's selfish, but I think we... as council members, you hear the venom coming from some of our speakers. That's a daily occurrence. You know, the emails, the voicemails, the text messages that we get from residents. And, you know, people have asked me, you know, why do you sit there and take it? Good question. So, that's my piece. That's why I brought this up and I think that a raise is necessary.

I'll go with you. I don't support this. Independent of how much time that you spend versus anybody else, that's going to be different from person to person. But what you're suggesting is a global increase, and that doesn't reflect the fact that some people do maybe less than you do. And I appreciate having been the mayor a few times. Yeah, you have to do a bit more, but then maybe the council members do. We've heard about the volunteers here in terms of their contributions, and I think that Mayor Pro Tem made a comment about having the heart of a volunteer. This is a position that is not about compensation. This is a position, and I still can say after almost 16 years of coming here, the immense pride I have to be able to sit in this seat after 16 years. It still gives me an immense amount of pride. I know it's a unique opportunity I've had, and I've never thought about the money, ever. Never thought I deserved more, ever, because I just feel like we're so fortunate to have this, and that's payment enough for me to feel how fortunate I am to have this opportunity to serve the community in an incredibly unique way. There's a lot of people who volunteer and don't get anything and probably work harder than I do. I'm sure there's a lot of people who would say, boy, I'd like to get something for my efforts, but sometimes it's just something we do. Fortunately, we get something today. $704, I think was the number. But I feel like I'm fortunate. And to that end, I would not want to see it increased. I certainly wouldn't support almost doubling it. And whether we have the money is not material at all to this decision, to me, whether we have the money. It's recognizing that we are so fortunate to have these positions for a brief time or longer, I guess in the eyes of some, and that's payment enough. I think about all the great things I've had a chance to do and the people I've had a chance to meet and work with and I feel so my cup is Overflowing and so I don't feel the money is needed for me in any way shape or form to to fulfill me anymore because I would do this and and I don't need any more money. So I don't support it. And for the record, whatever this council chooses to do has no bearing on me, as was indicated. This doesn't take effect till after I'm off this council. So I am not going to be seeing any of this, whatever direction. It doesn't affect me at all. But I just feel like I'm fortunate. I hope my colleagues would feel the same way. And I don't want to see us make this about more compensation for people. Thank you.

Yeah, so full disclosure, some of us on this council get stipends for other boards that we're on. My colleagues to my right are not on any boards that get a stipend. I get $100 a month from Vector when we have meetings. One meeting, I can have five meetings $100 extra that I get. My colleagues to my left are on multiple boards that get multiple stipends. And so compared to from here that way, yeah, the cups aren't running over like somebody else's. So, but have you been given a chance to be on a board that gives a stipend?

No.

Okay, I got Vector I think my second or third year. So I find it interesting that the person that's not wanting to do this has been getting a stipend for a while. So I'll leave it at that.

I'd like to respond to that since it's obviously directed toward me. That is recognition for the work I do at other agencies. They don't just give me money because that's for there. OCFA is $100 a meeting. That's it, and that's... Well, I'm just saying that's $100 a meeting, and it's the same for OCTA. It's $100 a meeting. OCFA, I have been there a few years, and in January of next year, somebody else is going to have that seat, and they can have it, right? I won't be here. OCTA will end at the end of this year and but by the way, that's not a selection of this body That is the city selection committee So has no bearing on whatever this council wants for OCTA has nothing to do with how I got to that seat so it's it's a little bit of a an apples and oranges comparison But I am, yes, I am paid a whopping $100 a meeting when you start to factor in travel time, agenda reading, on and on and on. Sometimes minimum wage will look pretty attractive. So I don't do it for the money. I didn't apply for any of those. I didn't seek any of those because of the money. Never have, never would. I feel so fortunate to have the opportunity to serve. And I know in By the end of this year, other people are gonna take the seat of TCA. Somebody else is gonna have that seat. Somebody else is gonna have OCFA. And maybe somebody here, maybe somebody else. SO I DON'T PERSONALLY FIND THAT RESONATES WITH ME AS BEING RELEVANT TO IT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS CITY COUNCIL, THIS COMPENSATION, NOT SOMEBODY'S TOTAL COMPENSATION, AND FOR THAT, I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT GET INCREASED. IF IT WAS GOING TO BE SOMETHING MORE MODEST, I WOULD ENTERTAIN IT, BUT TO ALMOST DOUBLE IT FEELS A BIT MUCH. THANK YOU.

GO AHEAD. SINCE I SERVE ON ANOTHER BOARD, TCA PAYS $125 A MONTH, BUT WE ARE BEING PAID TO SERVE ON ANOTHER COMMITTEE THAT IS ANOTHER BOARD, AND SOMETIMES THOSE MEETINGS, I KNOW THAT ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY GOES IN THE WEE HOURS OF THE NIGHT SOMETIMES, SO IT IS NOT A GIVE ME. IT'S SERVING IN ANOTHER CAPACITY. I'LL BE GONE. SOMEONE ELSE CAN GET TCA. I FEEL LIKE DOUBLING THE SALARY OF OUR COUNCIL, GETTING CREDIT FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS AND DOUBLING THE COUNCIL'S PAY IS EXORBENT. OVERLOOKING THE BLESSING THAT WE HAVE TO SERVE THE CITY OF LAKE FORCE AND TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY AND DO THE GOOD THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE. THIS CIVIC CENTER, THE SPORTS THE OSA, THE REVISED AND THE REDESIGN OF EL TOHO ROAD, SADDLEBACK PLAZA, WHICH USED TO BE A DUMP AND NOW A FLOURISHING METROPOLITAN AREA TO WHERE WE HAVE SOME OF THE TOP RESTAURANTS IN SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY. WE WERE ALL PART OF THAT. IT'S A GREAT HONOR FOR ME TO GO DOWN EL TOHO ROAD AND SAY, HEY, I WAS INVOLVED WITH THEM COMING TO LAKE FOREST. I GOT TO VOTE. I GOT TO VOTE ON THIS. I GOT TO VOTE ON THIS AND HELP DESIGN THIS BUILDING. SO THE GREAT HONOR THAT I GOT SERVING THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST CAN'T BE COMPENSATED WITH MONEY. I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT IT AS THE HONOR OF SERVING THE RESIDENTS OF LAKE FOREST AND SERVING MY COMMUNITY. AND I LOVE THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST. I THINK IT IS JUST ASSORBENT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WOULDN'T BE SO ASSORBENT. I DON'T AGREE THAT $1400 IN DOUBLING OUR PAY IS IS BRINGING THE RIGHT SPIRIT HERE BECAUSE WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS AND WE ARE HERE TO VOLUNTEER TO THE CITIZENS OF LAKE FOREST AND MAKE WISE DECISIONS. I'M SO THANKFUL THAT I'VE GOT THIS COUNCIL AND THIS COUNCIL HAS STABILIZED THIS CITY IN IMMENSE WAYS THAT SOME OF THEM THAT WEREN'T HERE COULD NEVER SAY WHAT WE WENT THROUGH WHEN WE WERE CONFLICT HERE OR THE STAFF HAD TO GO THROUGH WHEN THERE WAS BICKERING GOING ON AMONG THE COUNCIL. WE DON'T DO THAT, BUT THE FACT IS WE ARE HERE WITH A SERVANT HEART.

Yes, we are public servants, but like any organization, even here in the city, our staff receives compensation based on their merit, their achievements, and whatnot. We heard tonight, it was very appreciative to hear somebody actually appreciated our service. They verbally said that. It's rare that we get that. I know a lot of people feel that way and don't express it, but I consider this as a simple gesture of appreciation. And it's recognizing that we are doing good work, the city is well managed, we have oversight, and we are bringing to this community a value. And the amount of the increase is really negligible, but to me it's a statement of appreciation, and I support this gesture.

So we talked about service. This is my 42nd year of service in a row, 47, 42nd, 42. So one of my first 21 years in the Marine Corps, I said I made $67,000 a year. I didn't do it for the money. I didn't do it for the money. I joined the Sheriff's Department. I didn't do it for the money. And I became a city councilman, and I damn sure didn't do it for the money.

so um you know when we talk about service i've done my service i feel it's an honor and a privilege surround this council it's mostly a volunteer job and if you guys remember when i just got on the council i proposed cut the compensation to one dollar and i got it turned down I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS INCREASE HERE. I THINK I WILL PROBABLY SUPPORT A MODEST INCREASE TO $800.

IS THAT A MOTION?

I'LL SECOND THAT. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION AT 300. YOU MADE A MOTION.

I DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION YET.

YOU DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION.

Thank you.

So Mr. City Attorney, go back up a little bit on your, there was some numbers that you had. Yeah, that was right there. So method two, right? So that's the, that's 738. So that's what we get. What do we get now?

704. 704. Before taxes.

SO THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO YOU, YOU HAVE TWO METHODS BY WHICH YOU CAN CALCULATE AN INCREASE. UNDER METHOD ONE, YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING, SO YOU TAKE YOUR CURRENT SALARY WHICH IS 704, MULTIPLY THAT TIMES 5% TIMES ANY NUMBER BETWEEN 1 AND 18. THAT GETS YOU TO 633. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WENT TO NINE YEARS, THAT GETS YOU TO $316. EIGHT YEARS WILL BE JUST UNDER $300. BUT YOU CAN TAKE IT ANYWHERE FROM 1 TO 18. ALTERNATIVELY, METHOD 2 ALLOWS YOU TO INCREASE IT BY CPI FROM A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD, WHICH IS JUST A 4.97% INCREASE IN YOUR SALARY, WHICH GETS YOU TO THAT AMOUNT RIGHT THERE. But you have a lot of options available to you in terms of increase if the council wish to go that.

So what would the number be at nine?

Nine is an increase of $316.80, which takes you to, let me just do some quick addition here, a total of $950.40. That's your halfway point.

All right. I'll make the motion for CPI or the times nine. Nine years. Nine years.

Okay. So what's the final number? So the final number, and it might be smart to have somebody check my math here. Okay.

So $704 is your current salary.

The formula then is times 5%, so .05 times 9 gets you to $316.80. You add that to your $704. Yeah, my math was wrong. That's $1,020.80. Okay. That's why you double-check the lawyer's math. $1,020. Okay.

So that will be my motion.

I will make a substitute motion. We stay the same.

Okay.

New math? Yeah, new math.

I'll second that motion. I'll second the substitute motion.

All right. I'll get a motion and a second. Let's vote.

And just to be clear, we're voting right now on the substitute motion to remain the same, the status quo.

Yep.

And that motion passes unanimously.

All right. So we will now move on to the city manager report. Madam city manager, do you have anything to report?

No, I have nothing further. Thank you. Okay.

Council comments. Council member Tetimer.

Nothing tonight, thank you.

Council Member White. Nothing further, thank you. Council Member Yu.

Nothing further.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Going through a little withdrawals after the 4th of July celebration. The parade was excellent. Staff did a marvelous job. We even rescued a six-year-old child who was lost before the parade. So everything went off fantastic for that day. And I'm going to miss the historical elements that we've cited. And I've actually done some extra research on John Adams and my wife, Abigail, played by the wonderful T. Merritt. in our video that we did. So if you haven't seen that little 90-second video, it's actually, I think, very well done. So thanks, staff, for all that work. Thanks for all of our folks who hung out late tonight with us and exercising your opportunity to have freedom and be participating in our process. Much really appreciate that. And in terms of the math that goes there, we all know why it's important to wear glasses in math class, because it helps with division. Thank you.

Thank you. So I attended the multicultural event. The staff did a great job. I attended the four-chamber mixer. I went to the concert in the park with Redneck Rodeo. And of course, the 4th of July was a tremendous success. And with that, I'll adjourn.