City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the June 16th, 2026 regular city council and special housing authority 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 systems. We will now move on to closed session public comment. Madam city clerk, have you received any requests to speak during public comment?

We have not, Mayor.

Okay. 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. Let the record reflect that Councilmember Voigt will be absent tonight. If you wish to speak, please fill out a blue speaker card and provide it 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 on the 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. Finally, please address your comments to the city council. Staff will only respond to questions from the city council, not from public speakers. We will now move on to the invocation. The invocation will be provided by Pastor Tom Wheeler from Saddleback Church. Welcome.

Well, thank you. It's been a, yeah, it's been a year. It's been a year. Thank you very much for having me. And I love all the construction activity. I don't know what took you guys so long to get it going again. But it's fantastic to see all the activity going on around here. So thank you.

I was going to take a shot, Tom, but I won't. You know, you're very kind. I appreciate that.

Let's pray. Lord, thank you for just providing a country that we can openly pray. Thank you for giving us a city that trusts in you. I know that you can do immeasurably more than we ask or imagine. And we pray for that blessing on this meeting tonight and pray for a blessing on Mayor Picanha and the city council members. for the just incredible city staff that is here serving our community, that you bless them. Bless everyone who serves this community, Lord. And we pray for just wisdom in this meeting, for integrity, for your blessing to be here, Lord. Allow just this council to do their best for this community and to continue to put the people first. And we just pray all these things in Jesus' name. Amen.

Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back. 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 Scout Troop 628.

Please rise if you're able. Put your right hand over your heart. Ready, begin. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Ready? Three, two, one.

Thank you.

That brings us to our closed session report. Mr. City Attorney, are there any reportable items for this closed session?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There is no action to report this evening.

That takes us to the closed session public comment. Madam City Clerk, have you received any requests to speak during closed session public comment?

There are none, Mayor.

Thank you. We'll move on to public comment. Before we move on to public comment, I'd like to invite Captain Paltz. TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK ON INFORMATION ON RECENT EVENTS REGARDING THE E-BIKE ENFORCEMENT IN LAKE FOREST AND HIS PLANS FOR TACKLING FIREWORKS.

GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. We had a call for service at the Wal-Mart in Foothill Ranch on June 7th regarding juveniles on e-bikes riding through the store. Identifying who people thought were the juveniles involved, trying to help, and I appreciate that. We responded to that call that day. We made contact with members of the staff of Wal-Mart At that time, nobody wanted to press charges against juveniles for any crimes that occurred there.

We did do an to our residents as well as mitigates the issues in this public safety arena. So thank you.

And our next public commenter is Brian McMillan.

Hello, my name is Brian McMillan. I'm a small business advocate for the City of Lake Forest. Mayor Pequeno is correct. In July of last year, four of you gave compelling arguments that massage businesses are Lake Forest Municipal Code compliant. Then in August, you all agreed that all massage businesses as well as spa, wellness, and therapy businesses in private rooms are, here is the quote, immediate and significant threats to health, safety, and public welfare. Even Councilman Tettemer bought into this, which is really disappointing because usually he's smarter than that. There are two legal problems with this. Violations of health, safety, and public welfare must be based on substantial proof of actual injuries or interference, not hypothetical or imaginary or potential injuries, which is completely different than what the massage moratorium resolution had. Number two it has already been adjudicated in California Superior Court that all massage and related businesses in Lake Forest Specifically are not threats to the health safety and welfare codes has already been adjudicated See Macmillan versus City of Lake Forest, California Supreme Court February 2025 Your city attorney has known this since fiscal go away anyone in the city anyone in the city from the mayor to a lowly code enforcement employee can pick up a phone. Anyone in the city can call a business suspected of doing something illicit and tell the owner that the business could be in violation of Lake Forest Municipal Code. Very few people are familiar with Lake Forest Municipal Code and business owners would probably welcome this information. The business owner and the city can work it out from there. They have the tools to abate the nuisance. This lack of effort by everyone in the city shows a city run by people who are mainly interested in punishing alleged code violators and not interested in some perceived problems. Nobody in the city has picked up a phone. Nobody on the stage here. No city employees. No one in government. And I personally think that's reckless and evil. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next public commenter is Sean Fletcher.

Good evening city council members and members of the community. My name is Sean Fletcher and I've been a Lake Forest resident for 24 years. For the past five years, the Lake Forest Area Trash Walkers and Clean Lake Forest have organized a community cleanup following the city's 4th of July celebration. This year we'll be meeting at 8 a.m. on July 5th at the corner of Toledo Way and Ridge Route. We'll provide trash pickers, safety vests, and trash bags, and everyone is welcome to participate. Last year I spoke before this council about the growing problem of people reserving parade viewing locations days in advance using tape, chairs, blankets, and other items. Unfortunately the problem continued much of the tape is left behind and after baking in the summer sun it becomes extremely difficult to remove from sidewalks tonight I again asked the council to consider limiting the placement these items until the day of the parade specifically once the roads are closed and it's safe for pedestrians to step into the street to avoid obstructions allowing people to reserve spaces days in advance create safety hazards. restricts access to public sidewalks and gives some residents an unfair advantage over others. Sidewalks are public spaces that should remain accessible to everybody, including those with mobility limitations. Early placement of objects can disproportionately impact people who use wheelchairs, walkers, strollers, effectively excluding them from parts of the city. I again remind you that since this is a city event, the city opens itself up to significant liability to lawsuits claiming the city is violating the Americans with Disability Act. which requires unobstructed sidewalk access of at least 36 inches, not including the curb. A simple policy limiting setup until parade day would improve safety, promote accessibility, and reduce litter, and create a more equitable experience for all residents. I understand this may not be the most popular proposal. However, we elect our leaders not simply to make popular decisions, but to make decisions that are fair, responsible, and in the best interest of the entire community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments, mayor.

Um, number three, I guess I'm already here. Uh, thank you for your comment, Sean. And I'm not sure if some of you watch some of our, our Facebook videos that we put out there. And just recently this week we had Vicki and Laura Hunter do a video on this very topic, talking about anybody who sets up more than the, the, the day is that the day of the day before, I think it's the day of, day before, I'm sorry, day before. If you set up before that, stuff's gonna get picked up and taken away. So we are going to enforce that and it's out there to make sure the residents have a great time for the 4th of July. So again, thank you for the reminder and appreciate your nice work you do after the parade to keep Lake Forest clean.

Our next public commenter is Randy Johnson.

Well, good evening council. Here I am again, Randy Johnson. I want to thank the captain up there, Captain Pulse, for coming up to the podium here to talk about firework enforcement. You know, I've been a resident of Lake Forest now for 29 years. I've been following these meetings for over 20 years. I have never seen once before a police chief in Lake Forest step up to the podium to talk about firework enforcement. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that I sent you back on the 11th, an email, all of you, that's entitled Illegal Firework Enforcement. And also I sent you another report, Fireworks Threaten Public Safety. Both are made part of the public record today, okay? So let me tell you what happens in my neighborhood in southeast Lake Forest. Last 4th of July, we had sky rockets, M80s, cherry bombs going off. continuously from 8 o'clock in the evening until 2 o'clock in the morning. My wife and I couldn't fall asleep until after 2 o'clock. You know, we have boarding care homes in my neighborhood that house the elderly. They're sick people, aid cars going back and forth all the time. These people have to live with that. We have animals that scare us a bejesus out of them. We used to have a dog. We had to put him on sedatives before the 4th of July because the fireworks over there. But last 4th of July was more egregious than any other time in the history of my residence in the city of lake forest unbelievable this happened for seven hours straight that tells me there was no enforcement whatsoever none and you could be stevie wonder and and and see these people out there lighting off these fireworks skyrockets going up into the air exploding midair OK, some right over my house. I mean, it was like a war zone, for God's sakes. And you did nothing to stop it. Nothing, the city of Lake Forest. And that's got to stop. There's got to be enforcement this time around. They've got to assign at least two deputies exclusively to go after fireworks violators in this city. You got to get serious about it, because if you don't, I'm coming back here and I'm going to raise holy hell. I'm going to talk to all the people in my neighborhood about this, alert them before the fact here, of what to expect if the city of Lake Forest sits on their hands once again and refuses to enforce the laws. And Mr. Serbo, you're on the safety committee, for God's sakes. You should be concerned about this. What do you mean if they witness it? I could walk over there and pick them off like flies. Deputize me. I'll do it. deputize me. I'll go over there and cite them myself. They have to do it right out in the public domain in the open. They can't hide. They can't do it from their basements. They're doing it right out in the open for God's sakes.

Thank you for your time.

And our last general public commenter is Dana Silva.

Good evening. I'm Dana Silva, Portola Hills 2 board and Firewise committee representative. I'm speaking on four concerns this evening. I'm going to go really fast. The first thing I need on a follow-up is the email for Jonathan Voltsky's replacement, please. Here we go. First of all, thank you. Last year I was here, I spoke on brush removal at Concourse Park. The city had acacia that was five and six feet tall growing in with low branches of Aleppo and OCFA came and also then spoke with you and you did that. But we have some concerns in our community in regards to the replanting. The replanting that we have had to do after receiving our $3 million grant from CAL FIRE and OCFA, the spacing is to be six feet. Your spacing is two to three feet and it is within the zero to 100 and zero to 50 feet zone within some of our houses. So we're asking you to mitigate the spacing of those plants. Some of the plants also are not firewise approved. We're asking you to look carefully at what you planted and we'd like to know if you conferred with OCFA or CAL FIRE before you replanted. The second issue I'm going to speak on are the streets. It's my understanding that after the horrendous job that your contractor did putting in the cable, that our streets aren't going to be re-slurried until 2030 in Portola Hills. that's unacceptable we have ruts we have pits it's there's sand everywhere some of them are four inches deep that we go over every day and the streets have not been adequately swept since then so there's rocks and gravel everywhere third issue bikes all we can do about the motorbikes oh no todd spitzer has a special um COMMITTEE THAT HE HAS STARTED IN REGARDS TO E-BIKES. WHY YOU HAVEN'T CONTACTED THEM AND WHY THEY'RE NOT HERE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND AFTER THE EVENT AT WALMART. THE SERGEANT THAT'S IN CHARGE OF THAT IS GERARD MCCANN. HE SHOULD BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY. FOURTH ISSUE, MUNICIPAL CODES Chapter 5.6, peddling, canvassing, and solicitation. There's like 13 sections of this. None of them are followed within the city. When you call the city telling them that you have people up there peddling who look like they're just out of jail, have no permit, have no idea, have no badge that they're supposed to have, people at the city goes, oh, we have no idea that we even have an ordinance against that.

Thank you for your comments.

That's it, Mayor.

Thank you. We'll move on to the consent calendars for Housing Authority, items 1 and 2, and items 2 through 15. All matters under the consent calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless members of the City Council or staff request specific items be removed from the consent calendars for separate action. Have there been any requests to remove items from the consent calendar?

There have been no requests, Mayor.

Okay. I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

LET'S VOTE.

I DO NEED ONE MORE VOTE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. AND THE MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER VOITZ ABSENT.

Okay, we'll move on to public hearings. We'll now move on to public hearing item number 16. I would like to open it. Madam City Clerk, please read the title for item number 16.

Yes, the title of item number 16 is the adoption of a final resolution ordering abandonment of the park designation of the park designation.

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

thank you mayor tonight we'll have a presentation by our economic development and housing manager adrian grahalva good evening mayor and members of the city council tonight i have a brief presentation regarding the municipal park abandonment law the city owns an approximately six and a half acre Park site commonly referred to as Whispering Hills, located along the east side of Lake Forest Drive between Vintage Woods Road and Dimension Drive. Pending city council approval, the parcel would be split and a deed restriction placed on an approximate two and a half acre portion of the property for park development. The site has remained undeveloped since prior to the city's incorporation in 1991. As part of the original development approvals, the developer responsible for constructing the park did not complete the required park improvements and instead provided the county with an IOD for park purposes. The IOD was subsequently transferred from the County of Orange to the city in 1999. After the transfer of the IOD to the city, the city designated the site as community park open space in the city's general plan. Over the years, the city has explored various options to develop the site as a park. Prior community outreach efforts generated interest in a range of recreational amenities. However, no clear consensus emerged regarding the preferred park use. In addition, there was an absence of identified funding for capital improvements, ongoing maintenance, and long-term operations of a park. Due to the lack of a clear consensus and identified funding, the site remains undeveloped. Included in the strategic plan is strategic initiative number 13, Whispering Hills Affordable Housing Development. The initiative aims to identify an affordable housing development partner to develop the parcel into affordable senior housing, parking, as well as a park. This initiative is structured in two phases. Phase one consisted of a public outreach process. Postcards were sent to over 800 addressees and two community meetings were held. Each resident that attended the public meetings are being notified via email of each item coming before the city council. Phase two contemplates advancement of the development process subject to city council authorization. Historically, the city has assisted with the development of affordable housing by offering loans from the city's affordable housing in lieu fees fund and housing authority money restricted to further affordable housing. Limited funding remains and therefore any future affordable development would most likely come from private development. California state income limits apply to state and local affordable housing programs linked to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development income limits. HUD released updated income limits last month, and they're provided on screen. We received an email at 5 p.m. this evening, so we've actually received seven emails from residents regarding the project. They include requests for general information on the project, details of tonight's public hearing, clarification of which publication ran the public notice, a question about park amenities, and comments on potential environmental impacts to the site. We're here this evening to finalize the municipal park abandonment law process. Last month, the city council adopted a resolution of intention expressing the city's intent to abandon the site for development purposes. Following adoption, the resolution of intention was published once per week for three consecutive weeks and placed around the parcel as required by state law. That brings us to tonight. This evening, the city council is conducting a public hearing and considering adoption of a final resolution to formally abandon the park designation. In coordination with the MPAL process, the city would be required to comply with the Surplus Land Act. This process would begin with the city council declaring the property a surplus and staff issuing a notice of availability to HCD and other eligible entities. Following issuance of the notice of availability, interested parties would have a 60-day period to notify the city of their interest to purchase the property. If interest is received, the city would be required to engage in good faith negotiations for a minimum of 90 days to determine acceptable terms, including price and development parameters. If no agreement is reached during the negotiation period, the city may proceed with disposition of the property subject to HCD's review and confirmation that the city fully complied with the SLA. HCD would then have 30 days to review the submittal and notify the city if a violation of the SLA occurred. In the event of a violation, the city would have 60 days to remedy. A preliminary timeline illustrating how the SLA process could be coordinated is provided on screen. The timeline is intended for planning purposes only, and may be adjusted based on city council direction, public input, or other procedural requirements. The recommended actions are to authorize staff to move forward with completing the MPAL process. That concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for that, Adrian. Before we go to council, Madam City Clerk, do we have any requests to speak on this item?

do mayor and our first public commenter is brooke maynard my name is brooke maynard and i've lived in whispering hills since it was built we've waited for this park for a really long time this probably wasn't what we Originally thought we would get or had in mind. We thought it would just be a public park that would be next to our homes I had a few questions, but I can see that questions aren't going to be taken about this so Ma'am you can ask your questions and maybe staff or council will try to address them with staff. We got to ask questions Okay, what the gentleman just said was so it's going to be a two and a half acre park I assume Then he said it's either for sale or lease you're gonna do the land. So what which one is it?

Well, we'll get to that in a minute.

Just ask your questions and okay, you got three minutes well, I wanted I wanted to know will there be parking for the park and How many units are planned? And some will there be some kind of four-way traffic Stop or is there going to be anything? to help the flow of traffic? And is there any timeline for the construction, but obviously not? Those are my questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next public commenter is Amanda Sheik.

Good evening, council. My name is Amanda and I'm a Whispering Hills homeowner in the tract overlooking the open space. I'm under no illusions that you listen to residents who oppose this plan. You have made it clear that gathering quantitative data from resident viewpoints is simply not a priority. As soon as you wanted to push your own agenda on this land, staff time and resources magically appeared. Yet there was never any staff time or resources to do what you were legally supposed to do with it. via the irrevocable offer of dedication. To remind everyone here, the resolution attached to that IOD states it is in the best interest of the city to accept dedication of this lot for public park and recreational purposes in accordance with the city's general plan. Irrevocable should mean impossible to change, but you've bent over backwards and spent resources on legal processes to rewrite the rules when it serves you 25 years later. Ultimately, this process serves the people up on this stage far more than it served the residents down here or any senior who actually needs affordable housing. I am all for affordable housing solutions. I just couldn't disagree more with your process to achieve that with this site. Because of some lack of clarity, I have five questions about moving forward. The notice posted right now says that you are considering ordering a portion of the park abandoned and the land sold. What does sold mean and who owns the land after abandonment? in the april 7th presentation the language said the city intends to abandon and lease the site so that's not clear under the surplus land act will there be a sales exchange where the city no longer owns the land entirely fourth in either scenario leased or sold i think we're owed an explanation on who has final say on land management in the future and how much control will the city and surrounding residents actually have to provide input on the park section in the immediate future and also input on the affected traffic patterns that will arise from this plan. Fifth, the deed restriction on the map presented shows it's the two and a half acres was previously one, two and a half is great, is actually steep hillside and includes grass already maintained by our HOA. It is a section of the least usable space on the lot, quite frankly. And what is the actual plan for the slope, the elevation change to our grass that's much higher, and the tiny amount of usable space that's left over? If you are going to do whatever you want anyways today, you can at least give us a real roadmap of where we go from here. That acre of sloped land isn't a great solution, and we want real reassurances that our recreationally promised space won't be completely forgotten. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next public commenter is Tom Emick.

Good evening, mayor and city council. I am a long-term Lake Forest resident, all 14 months now. I've moved into Whispering Hills and very excited about the activity that you're taking on at this point in time. I'm here to ask for a no vote on this resolution. Straightforward. It doesn't make any sense. I've heard that the city council, the city's motto is remember the past and challenge the future. I'd like to hold the council to both halves of that tonight. Remembering the past means that in 1999 the city accepted the six and a half acres of property specifically as a park dedication That's not a council member you has described this property as too good of an opportunity to pass up I respectfully ask Not to miss the opportunity to keep the promise the city already made 27 years ago to build the park.

I

Challenging the future doesn't mean finding a clever way around that promise. It means finally keeping it. Tonight's proposal offers no deed restrictions on what's left of the parkland, no funding option, no timeline, no one accountable for building it. This has been the ongoing discussion for 27 years. Where's the funding? Anybody? Funding? Nope, no funding. Okay. This is not a challenge that's accepted It's the same unfunded promise from 1999. Repackaged while the part of the property that actually has money behind it gets handed off to a developer. And since we're talking about remembering things, three of you council members, Tiedemer, Voigt, and you are up for reelection this November, five months from now. Residents remember how their representatives vote on a 27-year-old promise to their neighbors. That's not a threat. It's just that we remember means we remember. I'm asking the council to deny the resolution or at least at minimum to continue it until there's a real funding commitment attached to it Not just another deed restriction with no teeth remember the past Challenge the future tonight. That means voting. No Thank you for your attention.

Thank you for your comments And our last commenter for this item is Jennifer guy I

Good evening. My name is Jennifer Guy. I am also a Whispering Hills resident. I live in the lower Whispering Hills kind of across the street from the property in question. I was at the last meeting where it was a great presentation about the benefits of the low income senior housing and all of the reasons why that was the way that the city was leaning. I kind of trying to piece that together, make sure my understanding is accurate. I think the presentation said there was a 2.5-acre deed restriction. My understanding is that that would maintain some aspect of it as a city park, which if that is true and I understood that accurately, I appreciate that. And I think that it's going to be a much improved situation for all of Whispering Hills to have 2.5 acres of a park there than a gated, empty lot. um so i think that is wonderful again i'm not familiar with deed restrictions very much so my understanding is that then the whoever develops the senior housing would build out the park and then would have to maintain it as a park because of the deed restriction but then would the city still maintain it um i believe is how it goes the other so i hope all that is correct if that is correct i appreciate that um the The traffic I'm sure that the city is aware that the especially for a senior community. We would need some kind of a traffic flow There's you know drag racing on that street three unprotected lefts in a row It's just some kind of traffic flow management since that is gonna get it's already crowded with the Starbucks there You know imagine you get a park so that some attention to that I'm certain the city has a plan and I appreciate that as well.

Thank you Thank you for your comments And that's it me. All right So Adrian, where'd you go? There you go. So let's answer a couple of questions. And maybe Mr. Erdmann can help out here. Have we done any traffic modeling for this? Okay, so how many units are they gonna build there? Or are they looking at, I mean, we haven't talked to anybody, but what's proposed, or what's the thought?

So there currently is no proposal on the table. What we're here, specifically what we're trying to do tonight is just remove the IOD. We're still very early on in this process. Once we remove the IOD from the parcel, then we can go ahead and initiate the Surplus Land Act. during those negotiations that's when we'll be able to have conversations with potential developers that are interested in the property and then that's when we can kind of start better understanding the the size of of the affordable development okay so then so also my next question would be parking which i'll probably get the same answer Yeah. So during the entitlement phase of construction, our planning department will ensure that there's sufficient parking in terms of the number of units that are proposed by the developer.

Okay. And that Ms. Maynard asked about timeline. So when we built, well, look at the senior affordable in the Meadows, how long did that take from groundbreaking to people moving in?

I'm not exactly sure. I'm not sure if we have that.

These projects can take anywhere from two to three years, depending on the funding you get from the tax increments. So they're going to have to go through a few cycles to get their funding. You know, construction might not start on this for two years.

Okay. All right. How long is the covenant? Will there be a covenant or how long was that?

Yeah, there certainly will be a covenant. Again, it really depends on their funding that they're able to secure. Our other two projects in town, the Mountain View Affordable and the Aspen Court Affordable, those are 55-year covenants, which essentially means those units are going to be at an affordable rate for a term of minimum of 55 years. Okay.

So there was a lot of questions asked, but I guess a lot of them can't be answered today until we figure it out, until concepts start coming across. So I do want to answer a lot of these questions, but right now it's a lot of hypothetical, not hypothetical, but we don't know what's going to go in there. But we do know one of the questions that was asked was who's going to pay for it and who's going to maintain it? Well, that's going to be put on the builder.

That's the city's desire is that we put the cost of building the park as well as maintaining the park on the developer that's ultimately selected.

And I said this at a prior meeting that I think that it's a win-win for this project because there's no money set aside for it, and there's definitely, there's no future funding for it. So if we can get somebody to build and maintain it, it's one, and then senior affordable, because I've said this before, seniors are our fastest growing homeless population, I think. And if you go back to slide number, I wrote it down, seven. So when you look at these incomes and people, you know, I heard low income and I'm not really a big fan of that term, especially when we talk about these affordable housing, there's a difference in the two between low income and affordable. If you look there, For three people, it's $149,000. That's a lot of money. And for one person, it goes from $14,000 to $116,000. $116,000 for somebody. That's an ambulance driver. That's a certified nursing assistant. So there's a lot of people that are professionals that make up to that. And when I was in the Marine Corps, I was in the very low income bracket at $65,000. So Doug was in the AMI of 14,000. So, but my point is that there's people out there that would benefit from this housing, and that park, the people that want to park there will benefit from that builder building that park and maintaining it. We can certainly look at traffic modeling once that comes up, but right now, like you said, I know you're trying to keep us focused on the SRPAS Land Act, but I just also wanted to answer some questions for people that have it, but I know you also have an email site or website that they can ask those questions and those questions can be answered on there also. That is correct. All right, colleagues?

Thank you, Mayor. So Adrian and our city attorney, if I was to summarize what I heard here, so the original person who was going to develop that into a park didn't do that. So it's maintained vacancy. Now we've had outreaches. We're trying to figure out what's the best use of that, balancing all these different needs that the city has. I wonder if you could speak to the irrevocable notion the promise that the city had in that how that relates in terms of the evolution of what happened with this park and where we're at now because my understanding is that if the park area just remains vacant then that could be one choice or we move forward with this next step and then we have an opportunity to dedicate a compromise of park area as well as affordable housing. Both of those are strong needs. But to the residents who spoke tonight about the irrevocable aspect of that, can I have you both speak to that please?

Yes, thank you, Mayor and Council.

That offer was made by the developer, William Lyon Company, back when this was initially developed. It was received by the county. When the city incorporated, we then assumed that offer. We accepted it pursuant to the government code. That acceptance does not promise the development of the park. It simply accepts the offer of dedication, which cannot be revoked by the offeror. That's what it means to be irrevocable. It means that it can't be revoked. When we accepted it, we accepted it as open space and parkland moving forward for potential development. Again, there was no inherent promise in that action. That would require funding to actually develop the parkland. The government code then allows us, if land that has been dedicated for a park site hasn't ever been funded as such or developed as such, a city is able to abandon that land as a park site by engaging in a hearing process like we're doing this evening to ensure again that money hasn't been expended, that plans haven't been made. There are no alternative uses to be put for that site. That's exactly what we're doing this evening. So again, there was no promise made to develop this as parkland. It was offered by William Lyon as open space and potential park and accepted by the city to hold in perpetuity until there was subsequent funding at some point.

okay and i know you know for our residents understanding some of this stuff can be confusing that's why we've had outreaches we've got a website we've got different things we're trying to communicate so i know some of the information and some of the questions are are just a matter of helping them understand how this all works out in terms of the language in terms of the legal aspects of it and then us trying to balance the needs of the of the city with that so thank you for helping us understand that adrian did you have any more comments about the

promise that was made back in 1997 versus where we're at now no i think the city attorney summarized it perfectly the only thing i'd like to add is over 10 years ago the city engaged the community in other community meetings to try and determine what type of amenities they wanted to see at that site so the city has definitely had this kind of on its agenda for a while now

That's been our track record for all these different projects and amenities. So follow that same kind of pattern. And we appreciate the input that we get from the residents. But sometimes it's just a matter of making sure everyone has the correct information about these things to where we say, all right, here are our choices. Let's figure out what the best one is to make. So I think that's where we're at tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I know there's a deficit of information. People are sort of scratching their head a little bit and trying to have us fill in some of the blanks, even though we don't have all that information. I guess one thing that I feel strongly about is that this property, if this goes forward, we would probably do something more akin to what we've done with Mountain View or I'll use Mountain View as a good example, where we would probably engage with nonprofits that do this type of business venture, if you will. So if you want to get a glimpse of one example of how we did this previously, go look at the Mountain View project, which is an affordable housing project, and get an idea about the kind of thing that we supported in the past. I think this is a nice blend of trying to continue to provide some park space for the community, and there's some interest, I think, by people, but also trying to provide some affordable housing as well. I think the idea that maybe some are concerned it's gonna be sold to some developer, like we think about typical apartment buildings, I don't think that's the path we're on. I'm not committing to that, I'm just saying I don't think that's the path we're on. I think the intent is to try and work with a nonprofit. Hopefully we're comfortable saying that because I believe that's the case. No, I'm comfortable saying it So I think the model would look more akin to what you would see for something like Mountain View and I would encourage anybody who wants to understand what that would look like in terms of a Quality of the product and things like that. You can go down there and look at that I think it's a great example of kind of an affordable housing Project that the city's supported in the past. I think there's also this idea that the state is

um encourages affordable housing through this process maybe mr city attorney you could speak to that a little bit yeah it's actually beyond encouraging yeah so that process we're going to engage in if the council moves forward tonight actually requires the city to first offer the property up to affordable housing developers these non-profits we're talking about If nobody then accepts that property for purchase, then we can do with it anything we want. But the reality is, for the first 90 days, it has to be offered up for affordable housing. It is unlikely that it will not be purchased by an affordable housing developer during those 90 days.

AND AT THE END OF THIS, THE CITY STILL OWNS THE LAND AND HAS A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WITH THE SUCCESSFUL PERSON COMING OUT OF THE NOFA PROCESS, CORRECT?

YES, AT THAT POINT WE WOULD NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE PARK SITE AND SO FORTH, BUT THERE WILL BE A NEGOTIATION ONCE WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY THROUGH THAT STATE MANDATED PROCESS. AGAIN, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS.

CORRECT. SO THE CITY STILL IS GOING TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY, A LONG-TERM INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE WE'RE STILL GOING TO OWN THE UNDERLYING?

UNTIL IT'S SOLD, CORRECT. UNTIL IT'S SOLD. So the portion of the property that is deed restricted remains deed restricted in perpetuity. That has to be kept as a park moving forward, right? The options for the city are to lease or to sell the property to affordable housing developer. As we've worked through the process, the SLA process, we've realized that the most likely outcome is a sale of this property to an affordable housing developer. who will then be responsible for developing the park site, which is deed restricted in perpetuity. So that portion of the site remains essentially in control of the city because it's deed restricted and can't be changed by any prospective purchaser.

Okay. Well, thank you for the clarification. I hope that helps some people here to provide a little more clarity as to what I think the path forward is for this property. We don't know that yet, but that's what I think the intent is to try and find a good blend of a project here. Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, so I know my colleague said to go look at Mountain View, but I would also encourage you to go over to the Meadows and look at their senior affordable that they have there, because I know that I'm really going to push really hard for this to be senior affordable, for Whispering Hills to be senior affordable and not just affordable. So you can go ahead and go look at Mountain View. But a couple of meetings ago, I did... point somebody over to the Meadows on where the seniors are, because one of the questions or one of the concerns was traffic. Go to the Meadows and look at that senior affordable, and the last thing you're gonna see is traffic. um and i know a couple of meetings ago we talked about senior mobility the city that's the seniors are starting to take advantage of that here in the city and we actually had to slow it down because they were taking advantage of this so i know that we're worried about traffic i'm pretty sure our public works is going to do the traffic modeling but i i seriously doubt and i think iron bridge has senior affordable So you can go up to Iron Ridge and look at that senior affordable. I think that's a lot, those are gonna be easier pills to swallow when you see senior affordable coming in. So I know we have one more speaker,

Mr. Mayor, if I may before that, just one more note. I think it's important to understand that all of these subsequent actions, beginning with the disposition of the property, the purchase and sale, continuing through the entitlement of the property, these all come back to the council and or the planning commission this entire process whatever it looks like will be public you we cannot sell lease or otherwise dispose of property without the council first chiming on on that and the planning commission also opining on it The entitlements cannot go forward without engaging in a robust CEQA process, traffic modeling. All the concerns that have been raised will have an opportunity via public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Council to be raised in detail. This will not happen behind closed doors. It cannot happen legally that way.

Yep.

Okay. Madam City Clerk, I hear we have another speaker.

Yes, we do. And that is Kenton Boettcher.

Hi. Good evening. I didn't mean to speak tonight. But I hear people talking about things that before they were born. And so I was at most of the meetings. I bought my home in Pushpung Hills. I signed the contract in August, or excuse me, April 1986. This site was graded in July of 85. And I did my walks up there near the park. i paid a huge sum seven percent of my housing price based on the iod and the county's promise and the developer didn't abandon it it was designed that it would be a county-wide payment building of a park And that would be passed to whoever bought it, which was City of Lake Forest. 91, we came up with Lake Forest. We were fighting over the park, the League of California Cities, and the first mayor and two of the other council were in a fight. When they became a city, they fought for eight years and finally put a resolution. And I was at the meeting. I wrote the letter from Quest Spring Hills. to accept the IOD under the conditions that there was a board resolution attached to the deed, which there was, that it could only be used for a park or recreational uses. I've sent you copies of that. And tonight, I really believe in the concept that we have for us may be the answer we've looked for. The problem is it's conceptual. There is no promises. As you just said, we have to offer it for affordable housing, and someone will come in and buy the whole thing. But you have the power to stop it. And I've talked to Keith Neves that we always say it's conceptual. There are no promises. And we've seen so many broken promises over the years. But if what we've seen, to have a park finally, and to make a difference in the lives of 65 plus seniors who may never have a chance to live or stay in Orange County is amazing. It's a miracle. But it's all up to you to ensure that that happens, that we're not in the process putting it up and snatched away. And so they said, when are you going to stand up and support this after 40 years? And I will support the concept that we see of Half Park. And we've talked for two years privately. And I believe your heart is in it.

Thank you for your comments. Thank you.

That's it, Mayor.

Okay, so now I will close the hearing. Do I have any colleagues, any more thoughts, any questions, comments? Okay, I'll take a motion. Okay, let's vote.

And that motion passes 4-0 with Council Member Voigt absent. THE TITLE OF ITEM 17 IS POLICIES ON DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE DURING MEETINGS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 707.

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

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WILL PASS IT RIGHT BACK TO OUR CITY CLERK TEAM MAYOR. SHE WILL BE GIVING THE PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM.

Very good. Thank you, Madam City Manager Rose. Thank you, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and council members. The item before you are two policies for your consideration. Both are required to be discussed and adopted at an open public session per Senate Bill 707. Next slide, please. That bill was passed on October 3 of 2025 in the California legislature. This bill affects all California cities. and updates several provisions of the Brown Act. Main takeaways from those updated provisions is that eligible legislative bodies must provide remote access to public meetings. have a policy in place that guides public outreach to underrepresented communities or groups that don't traditionally attend council meetings, and translate agendas into any language spoken by 20% or more of the local population that speaks English less than, quote, very well, close quote, based on the American Community Survey. Next slide, please. so the first policy for your consideration is the revised city council meeting management policy where language has been added to allow the presiding officer to limit the allotted time for speakers when needed so for example say when there are 50 public commenters at a meeting for one item this policy would allow for the presiding officer to limit the public comment time from 3 minutes to 90 seconds for that particular item. Next slide, please. Other revisions to this policy include language that further details the reconvening process after internet or telephonic service disruption, how to record findings in meeting minutes and how to respond to a member of the public who is disrupting a meeting online, otherwise known as Zoom bombing a meeting. Next slide, please. And the second policy for your consideration is the proposed public outreach policy. This policy provides general guidance for the reasonable efforts the council will take to engage communities that traditionally do not attend council meetings, so this will include In that policy will include having staff identify various outreach recipients and utilize different platforms for that outreach, such as social media, which by the way, we currently have been posting notifications on Facebook and Instagram about upcoming council meetings in both Spanish and simple Chinese. Next slide, please. So staff recommends the council adopt the revised city council meeting management and proposed public outreach policy. That is the end of my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. And are there any requests to speak on this item?

We do have one public commenter and that is Randy Johnson.

You know, I go back a long ways, my friends, and I can't remember the last time I ever, ever said something good about Gavin Newsom or the supermajority of Democrats up in Sacramento. I've never done that. I asked my wife. We've been married 25 years, you know. I said, have you ever heard me say anything nice about Gavin Newsom? She looked at me like I had an eyeball square in the middle of my forehead, and she just gave me that smirk, you know. This is one of the finest pieces of legislation, in my opinion, that has come out of Sacramento because it stands behind of, for, and by the people. We are the government. All of us are. We are the government. You aren't the government. We are, okay? And read the Declaration of Independence. They talk about consent of the governed, okay? And that's a very important phrase. and it should really go deep in your heart as elected officials, you should listen to us. And I feel we aren't listened to. I send you emails, I don't get a response about public safety. We got a former police officer there. We got a guy in the public safety committee. We got a guy who sits on, who's the director of the OCFA board. And when I talk about public safety and fires and fireworks and that sort of thing, no response at all, nothing. So the people should have a right to sit home if they want to and call in with their comments in their underwear. And I totally, totally support, completely support it because this is supposed to be of, for, and by the people. We are the government and we deserve a voice and we deserve your recognition for what we ask for up at this podium or on a telephone call or what have you. So I'm asking you to implement both these things, the Zoom and also just a regular call-in. So people can choose themselves of whether they want to be on video or just call in on the phone. We had that during COVID. It worked great. It worked fantastic. I called in several times, okay? And this should have been done a long time ago, and the conservatives should have backed it, the Republicans, but you didn't want it. nobody talked about it and you could have easily implemented it just like we had back in covid but you didn't care because you don't want to hear from us you don't care mr tetimer you don't care sir and it's proven by the fact that you don't respond to me even though you're in district four and i'm in district five you represent all of us sir And fireworks cause fires, for God's sakes. And I didn't get a response from any of you people about the concerns I have about fireworks in District 5, Mr. Pancueno. All right? Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

That's it, Mayor.

Okay.

Right. Thank you, Mayor. Just a question about how this lines up against any First Amendment rights. So if I can go to our city attorney and and ask the restriction of time reducing that if we have large audiences on a single item and then also disruptions, how does that play against First Amendment, making sure we don't have any issue with that?

Sure. Both of those changes are in line with the Brown Act. They're permitted both by the Brown Act and by case law. So there's no issue with the First Amendment.

Great.

Thank you.

Yeah. How are we going to deal with the Zoom bomb?

So, Mayor, Council, the policy provides for a procedure whereby the Council can give a warning to a person who is misbehaving with their calling and then can mute that person if they continue to Zoom bomb via either telephone or Zoom. It is, again, in line with the Brown Act and with case law that deals with disrupting meetings. It's the same process as in And as somebody who's in person, it's just online I'll move I'll second that okay, let's vote And then motion passes 4-0 with councilmember Boyd's absent

All right, thank you. Move on to item, Madam City Clerk, please read the title, item 18.

Item 18, the title is Eighth Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement.

Madam City Manager, please introduce, or I'm sorry, Mr. City Attorney, please introduce this item.

Thank you, Mayor. This item is the eighth amendment to the city manager's employment contract. The amendment provides for the following effective July 1st. an annual compensation increase of $16,963 for a base salary of $325,390, a one-time lump sum non-percival $20,000 bonus, and all other financial benefits remain the same and are reflected in the employment agreement and amendments included in the agenda. That concludes my report. I'm happy to answer any questions the council has.

Okay, before we do that, Madam City Clerk, have we had any requests to speak on this item?

We do, Mayor, and our first public commenter is Brian McMillan.

Hello, my name is Brian McMillan. I'm an advocate for small businesses in the city of Lake Forest. I urge you not to vote for this resolution tonight. A no vote please. The Lake Forest City leadership reminds me of the later Biden days. Nobody knew who was running the government. Luckily, in the last few months, I've been able to get a unique view into the city government. And if I was Ms. Rose, I'd be looking for a clean exit also. The Code Enforcement Department is run by a rogue supervisor who thinks he can ignore laws and make up new laws as he goes. The middle managers don't look to their supervisors for help or clarity because their bosses don't know what's going on either. In fact, one middle manager Didn't even know who the mayor was. The city attorney writes presentations for city middle managers to read to the council with no understanding to an also clueless city council in some cases. The city attorney intentionally misrepresents current laws and doesn't advise the city on anything important, like the fact that the city is prohibited from holding landlords responsible for the actions of their tenants. Never told anybody. The city is mired in two very expensive lawsuits over disputes that have already been adjudicated. Abuses, this is important, abuses of police powers create police states, like the evil leadership of Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. If you vote for this measure tonight, It will be more proof that you support a leaderless and ineffective city government that will be the poster child in how to ruin a city, and you want to reward this. This is just the opinion of a person who has a unique, in-depth knowledge of how the city of Lake Forest government works. I urge a no on this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next public commenter is Mark Hermanson.

Good evening.

Something like this, we all have our own different opinions based on what our own circumstances. The comments about fireworks, some people are worried about noise. Where I live, I'm more worried about fire. What I can say is in this city, my wife and I can go take a walk at night. We don't worry about anything. Maybe we carry some pepper spray for bobcats or coyotes. And that says something to me on my concerns. on how the city is run. I have stores in 12 different cities. I can walk around Lake Forest, it is clean. I go to some of my stores, I'm walking up the street and it smells like urine. It is literally that bad. There's trash everywhere, there's junkies everywhere, there's homeless. We don't have a lot of that in the city. Do we have problems, do we have things we don't like? It's hard for me to understand the issue with Whispering Hills because I don't live down there. But they would have a hard time understanding my parking issue. And the fact that we live in a city like that where we don't have some of the huge problems that our neighbors have tells me something is going right here. And that starts with our council and our city manager's office that we are doing some things correct and we have a good place to live. Now everybody may not agree with that. And again, we may all have different issues that we look at, but when we look at the overall scheme of things, we have a very tenured city manager and I'm surprised with the way Lake forest is that somebody hasn't grabbed our deputy city manager and yanked him to their city. I looked at, when I first started seeing things online, about what city managers make. We're actually kind of getting a pretty good deal, to be honest with you. So you guys have to make the decision, and I get some people have different feelings on it, but my wife and I, we live in Lake Forest, and we live here for a reason, and we're very happy to be here. So you can take that as you will, but I think some things are going very, very good in this city. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments and our last public commenter is Randy Johnson Council I'm not gonna stand here and try to convince you to vote in opposition of giving her a thirty thousand thirty seven thousand Compensation raise I'm not gonna do that There's a greater chance of me growing wings and flying to Mars, okay? None of you will even question it. You'll just vote for zero. It's a sure bet, a sure bet, you know? And I stood here two years ago when you gave her a $50,000 compensation raise, $50,000. And I oppose that, you know. She doesn't even interface with the public. When's the last time she sat down and answered questions from the public? She's going to be making close to $500,000 in compensation. If you don't believe me, look at Transparent California 2024. That's the last data posted. Right under $400,000. I think last year you gave her $37,000 compensation raise. This year you're going to give her, she's right under $500,000, half a million dollars for God's sake. And she won't even answer our questions and you protect her. You say, no, ask us the questions. Don't ask her. You treat her like a 12-year-old girl. If I was the city manager and you treated me that way, I would be insulted. with the amount of money she makes, I would be insulted and I would fight back. But she doesn't because she goes along with it. That's what she likes to do. She doesn't want to answer our tough questions and earn her money. She doesn't want to do it. She just wants to sit there with a smirk on her face. That's all she wants to do and just cash that check every two weeks. And you let her do it, Mr. Tetimer. You will say nothing tonight, sir. You'll say, I agree. Give her the $37,000 compensation raise. Same with you, Pinqueño. You were a big advocate of that $50,000. You gave us a big speech about that. Sirbo, you won't do anything. I read you like a paperback book, dude. You know, you'll just sit there and you'll say, let's give her the money. Mr. Yu, I don't even know what you're doing here, sir. You just sit there like a bump on a log every meeting. You don't even say anything, for God's sakes. So I have no respect, folks, because you circle the wagons. It's a big club, and we ain't in it. We ain't in the big club. That's just the fact of life. And you can dislike me for saying these things, but it's the honest to God truth. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I'll bring it.

That's it, Mayor. Colleagues?

Thank you. Just for clarification purposes, since the public speaker said it was a $30,000 plus, I think was the number, salary increase, that's not the case. It's a $20,000 bonus and a little less than $17,000 base salary increase. So I just want to clarify. I just wanna clarify for the public so they know what we're doing. Thank you for your input. I'm going to abstain on this and I will tell you why because I was not here at the last meeting. I was not able to come to the meeting and these matters are discussed in closed session before they come to the public. I was not available to attend that meeting, and I know the remaining council members spent a lot of time looking at a lot of information and comparisons and whatnot, and I was not privy to that, so I think it would be, I'm not comfortable voting in either direction, but I'm clarifying why I will be abstaining on this, because I think it, I know my colleagues spent a lot of time discussing this in closed session, I WAS NOT THERE AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR ME TO VOTE ON IT SO I'M MAKING MY DECLARATION THAT I WILL ABSTAIN ON THE MATTER THANK YOU MAYOR

When you look at leadership, you look at the amenities. Mark spoke about some of those. You take a look at our financial condition. Look at other cities in the entire state and see that we're in the top 10 of financially prudent cities. We are debt free. We have taken care of unfunded pensions. We continue to do improvements and amenities in this community that are appreciated by our residents. Most of you don't know Deborah Rose in terms of all the different things that she's involved in besides being our wonderful city manager. Over the years that she served this city in a competent way and hiring good people and bringing staff together along with the city council oversight, that's a powerful team. And it's a kudos to her leadership and the idea that we're compensating her this way is something that she is worth every dollar. And I appreciate so much the work that she's done on this on behalf of the city and all these years that she has made an incredible impact silently behind the scenes. And for those of you really want to know more about her, I encourage you to do that because she is an incredible resource and a valuable asset to this city. Thank you, Deborah.

I just want to echo the comment and on top of that, our long tenure city manager make below the average of Orange County city manager. So she, her, her race is well deserved. Thank you.

Okay. So I'm going to jump on that, that she currently is the long, the second longest tenured city manager in the county. Uh, The city manager for San Juan, who used to work for Deborah, got her by one year. Irvine is on their third city manager in the last 12 months. Laguna Hills next door, they're on their third city manager in four years, five years. So when you look at it, every year that I've been on council, this is my sixth year, for six years now, when we do her compensation, she comes to us and she asks to be right in the median. She's never asked to be at the top where she belongs. She's asked for the median. So she's never asked, she's never said, hey, I want to be paid the highest. I know there was a time the Laguna Hills city manager was the highest paid city manager in the county. How that happened, I don't know, but I was thinking about becoming a city manager and going to Laguna Hills because there's no way that that city can compare themselves to us. As far as her contacting residents, it's not her job. It's our job. That's why we get elected. That's why we put ourselves out there and say, hey, vote for me. And we have to sit here for 24 meetings or 23 meetings and take, I mean, it's like going to a zoo at the monkey cage, take whatever crap they throw at us. So yeah, she doesn't have to answer. But I'll tell you this, last week I went to the, LEADERSHIP ACADEMY REUNION. SHE WAS RIGHT UP FRONT TALKING TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE LEADERS IN THIS COMMUNITY AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. SHE DOES THIS ALL THE TIME. IF SOMEBODY HAS AN ISSUE, THEIR FIRST THING IS CONTACT THEIR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. IF THEIR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER DOESN'T RESPOND, FILL OUT AN ALF TICKET. YOU WILL GET A RESPONSE. Okay. So for, uh, anybody to say that she's not worth it, she's worth every penny. And, um, I, I think she's, you know, she doesn't get paid what she should get paid because she's not a greedy person. She's, she's the best city manager in this state. So that's what I say. And I'm going to move this motion.

Okay.

I'll second and let's vote.

That motion passes 3-1-0 with Council Member Tettemer abstaining and Council Member Voigt absent.

Okay, we'll move on to item number 19. Madam City Clerk, please read the title of item number 19.

The title of item number 19 is Legislative and Regulatory Matters.

Madam City Manager, please read this, introduce this item.

Thank you, Mayor. We have our assistant to the City Manager, Nydia Ruelas, who's going to give us an overview of our piece of legislation.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. The item before you tonight includes additional information regarding Assembly Bill 1795 following the legislative and regulatory matters discussion at the May 21st meeting of the City Council. Specifically, the Council requested information regarding the bill's projected financial impact with a particular focus on its impact on consumers of insurance, that is, residents and businesses impacted by insurance rates and affordability. To provide a brief background on the bill, the bill aims to develop and establish a consistent framework for smoke damage claims and mandate training and compliance from insurance providers. Currently, the bill has passed to the State Senate. The staff report contains detailed information from the analysis provided to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Costs of implementing the bill are expected to be covered by fees established through the program and involve the work and findings of various regulatory agencies. Startup costs to establish for the establishment of regulatory fees will be borne by the state's general fund. The bill's training and compliance standards would apply to all insurance providers, so that includes both market rate providers as well as fair plan providers. As these standards will apply to insurance providers specifically, it is uncertain what the ultimate impact would be on the end consumer, as that would depend on actions by the insurers themselves. Insurance associations have expressed concerns over the bill and emphasize the importance of operational feasibility and evidence-based practices. As mentioned, the bill has moved to the Senate. Based on city council direction, the city may adopt a formal position or may opt to continue to watch the progress of the bill. Staff may provide updates based on any changes to the status of the bill. At this time, as this item was brought forward at the request of the City Council, I'll now turn it over to the City Council for further discussion and am available for any questions.

Thank you, Lydia. Before we do that, do we have any requests to speak on this item?

We do not, Mayor.

Thank you. I'll pass it over to my colleague.

Thank you mayor and thank you to the council for continuing this matter so I could be here to talk about it. So in general, it's some new provisions that are being contemplated and that I presume will result in increased insurance costs and we've probably all seen reports about the unaffordability of insurance and I think this is gonna compound that issue. That's what I was concerned about I have no financial interest in this in either direction. I've not talked to anybody professionally. There's no lobbying going on. It's just my concern that when we have an unaffordable commodity and there's legislation that's gonna make it even more unaffordable, seems like that may go the wrong direction. And since we don't really have any good information or anything to respond to other than we don't know, we'll see. But I'm sure the insurance industry will say if new costs are going to be born, that will be passed along to rate payers. And that seems to be compounding a challenging circumstance. I will recommend a watch position for now and ask staff to see what additional information you can glean either from the author's office or anywhere else to see if there's anything more later on if we revisit this uh this bill at a later date to see if there's any more about it but that's really my concern that it's going to make a difficult circumstance even more so so my recommendation would be to put us on a watch position thank you mayor if i recall this is about smoke damage it kind of addresses that specifically is that correct correct

And looking at this, and to Council Member Tetimer's point, is that when you look at, I mean, government overreach is something I think this council doesn't want to have impacting fees and costs to the residents. And so I think that there's already things in place whenever there's a damage claim for whether it's smoke or fire or these kind of situations that the dispensation that occurs from insurance companies and the contractors pretty much takes care of this on its own. And so I think this is something that is prohibitive. It's going to increase costs to the residents. And so I'm actually taking a step, I would say that We take a no position on it, but I can accept the watch position, but I would think that this is something that for our own purposes that we state that we're not in favor of it.

mayor if i could i i don't disagree with the sentiment there at all i think the watch position was to say let's see if additional information can be developed and let's just sit on the sideline and wait we can always take a position later on if we get more information maybe it turns out that there won't be any cost increases in which case we may say it's a good thing but we don't know And I guess I've learned over my years that if you want to be part of the conversation, if you take an opposed position, you will probably not participate in any way, shape, or form in conversations about bills. If you want to preserve the opportunity to weigh in or influence, it's better to leave yourself in a watch position, and that way you have an opportunity to weigh in if you so choose.

Okay, you've talked me off the cliff. I'll go with that then. So let me ask a question. So if we take a no position, Who will not let us have a seat at the table?

Staff can speak to us as well and tell me if I get this wrong, but it's generally my understanding that when bill authors see that you're in a no position or an opposed position, then they may not be all that interested in talking to you. They're gonna talk to people that are saying oppose unless amended. They're more inclined to speak to those that are willing to have conversations versus those that oppose. That's been my experience, but I'll let staff can opine on that and share their perspectives.

So we can take a range of positions. It doesn't need to be an outright opposed position. It could be an opposed unless amended where we could then indicate what our concerns are as well.

So if we take a no position, at which point will we be able to talk to the authors? We usually wait. We count on League of Cities or ACCOC to go and advocate for us, correct?

So we can reach out to the authors directly. We have various avenues. Our state lobbyists also can help us out with that.

Mayor, that's what I would encourage us to do is work with our lobbyists to say, reach out to the bill author and say, here's our concern and see what information comes back from that. And then staff can come back and say, here's what we've learned. And then we can take whatever position we choose.

Yeah, or we can say no and send our lobbyists, change my mind. That's what I would say. I mean, if somebody told me no, no is merely a request for more information. So to me, I don't know if we're gonna move the needle either way. The lobby, the state assembly and state senate's gonna do what they wanna do. So I'll entertain a motion.

I believe I have made a motion for maintaining a watch position for now.

I will second that. All right, let's vote.

And that motion passes, 3-1-0, with Mayor Pequeno voting no, and Councilmember Voigt's absent.

Okay, that moves us on to the City Manager's, I'm sorry, the City Manager report. Madam City Manager, do you have anything to report?

No, no report.

Okay, Councilmember Tettemer?

Nothing tonight, thank you.

Councilmember Yu?

Attendant the the taste of Lake Forest. It was great event Thanks so much for the work of chamber and the city staff and also on June 4th The IPT enterprise project was approved by the Planning Commission meeting. I request the call up for the council reveal You were nothing

Mayor Pro Tem Serbo.

Thank you, Mayor. I also attended the Taste of Lake Forest event. The band, the trip was fantastic. 32 food vendors fantastic as well. The food was excellent and drink options all their heritage Hill landmark here in our city. That is something to behold. And I was there with my wife and she was telling me about how she actually attended school there at heritage Hill. Cause she's been here since the sixties, but this kind of nice always going back there and reminiscing on that, that property. And then I know that this week we've actually seen gasoline prices that have dropped, but there's been some economists that have basically said you should get rid of your rear view mirrors. And a lot of people who have done that, they haven't looked back since. So I just wanted to update people on the gasoline. And then we also talked about the telephonic access here tonight. So I understand the greatest invention, the very first greatest invention was the telephone. And the second greatest invention, the second telephone. So just a little telephone plug in there too. That's all I have, Mayor, thank you.

Thank you. So I attended the AAG National Championships right over here, right across the street from Oakley. And Team Mercury, which is the team from Lake Forest, qualified to complete compete in hungary in september and japan in november so congratulations to team mercury i attended the lake forest leadership academy last week uh well attended by some former members our uh our former um folks that passed the Leadership Academy. We got another one coming up in August. In August, I certainly think that you should go so you can get a little bit better grasp of what, how City Council runs. And I did, too, also, I went to the Taste of Lake Forest. It was great. It was hot. Adrian and Hope and Ian and Megan did a great job. The Chamber did an awesome job. A lot of people there. Thank you to all the volunteers, and it was successful. And I can't remember who won. So anyway, that'll come out. Do you remember who won, Keith? Oh, Lupe's Taco Stripes, stoner fries. I forgot, my wife voted for them. So, um, also last meeting, I, I asked for consensus for council compensation and what I failed to ask for was to add commissioners to that. So if I have to ask for another consensus, I'd like to, and that when that comes up for discussion that we add, uh, our, our commissioners to that compensation conversation.

I'll provide consensus. Okay.

All right, and so, On this date in history, on June 16th, 1776 through July 4th, 1776, that's what we're gonna talk about tonight. So good evening, everyone. Over the past several weeks, we've been taking a look back at the events that led to the birth of our nation. We've talked about the growing movement for independence, the leaders who helped shape that vision, and the proposal that brought the colonies one step closer to becoming a new nation. By the summer of 1776, that moment had finally arrived. After months of discussion and debate, the representatives from 13 colonies came together to take a historic step forward. On July 2nd, 1776, the Continental Congress voted in favor of independence from Great Britain. For the first time, the colonies were united as free and independent states. Mayor Pro Tem, what happened next?

Thank you. So while the vote for independence was a defining moment, Congress knew it was important to explain why the colonies had chosen this path. Over the previous weeks, a committee that was led by Thomas Jefferson had been drafting a document that outlined the principles and ideals of the American people. So on July 4th, 1776, Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence. The document announced to the world that the colonies were creating a new nation, founded on the belief that all people are created equal and all are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those words have continued to inspire generations of Americans for the past 250 years. Back to you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. This 4th of July, our nation will celebrate 250 years since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. As we gather with families, friends, and neighbors, we have the opportunity to reflect on the ideals that united our nation's founders and continue to inspire Americans today. Here in Lake Forest, we're proud to join communities across the country in celebrating this historic milestone. Thank you for joining us in this journey through 1776. We hope you'll join us on Saturday, July 4th, as our community comes together for Lake Forest's annual 4th of July parade. and once in a generation celebration of America's 250th birthday. On behalf of the City Council, Happy Independence Day and we'll see you at the parade. And with that, we'll adjourn.