Agenda packet — Lake Forest City Council, July 7, 2026 (part 4 of 7)

Visual Simulation Viewpoints
0 110 220
FEET
IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
# View Simulation Photo Viewpoint
3 2
1 Enterprise Way
c::::::J
C>
Item: 2
226
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
476
I:\C\CLF2101.04A\G\View Sim\View_Sim_Views-1-3.ai (9/19/24) FIGURE 4.1-1

Page 2 of 4 ends

Comparison Between Existing Visual Setting
and the Nature and Degree of Visual Change
View Simulation - View 1
IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project
View 1 - Existing View
View 1 - Simulated View
LSA
Item: 2
227
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
477
I:\C\CLF2101.04A\G\View Sim\View_Sim_Views-1-3.ai (9/19/24) FIGURE 4.1-1

Page 3 of 4 ends

Comparison Between Existing Visual Setting
and the Nature and Degree of Visual Change
View Simulation - View 2
IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project
View 2 - Existing View
View 2 - Simulated View
LSA
Item: 2
228
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
478
I:\C\CLF2101.04A\G\View Sim\View_Sim_Views-1-3.ai (9/19/24) FIGURE 4.1-1

Page 4 of 4 ends

Comparison Between Existing Visual Setting
and the Nature and Degree of Visual Change
View Simulation - View 3
IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project
View 3 - Existing View
View 3 - Simulated View
LSA
Item: 2
229
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
479
PC Attachment 6
Item: 2
230
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
480
A.

City of Lake Forest, CA
Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Title 9. Planning and Zoning
Chapter 9.72. NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
§ 9.72.090. Land use matrix.

Land Use Matrix.

Table 9.72.090(A) Land Use Matrix
Use C I PA UA CAN A1 OS
Administrative Office P P P P X X X
Adult Business P P P P P X X
Adult Day Program S U S S S X X
Agriculture X X X X X P S
Alcohol Sales for Off-Site Consumption U U U U X X X
Ambulance Dispatch Facility X U U U X X X
Animal Clinic or Hospital P P P P P P X
Animal Hospital, Livestock X X X X X X X
Apiary X X X X X S S
Assembly of Component or Finished
Products

P P P P X X X
Assembly, Commercial U U U U X X X
Assembly, Non-Commercial, occupancy of
persons or less

S S S S X S X
Assembly, Non-Commercial, occupancy of
more than persons

S U U S X U X
Athletic Club P U X P X X X
Athletic Facility, Indoor S U U S X U U
Athletic Facility, Outdoor U U U U X U U
Auction House U U X U X X X
Auto Broker, no vehicles on site P P P P X X X
Auto Repair, Heavy X U X X X X X
Auto Repair, Light U P X U X X X
Automated Teller Machine (ATM) S A A A X X X
Automobile Sales and Rentals, with or
more vehicles on site

U U X U X X X
Automobile Sales and Rentals, with or
fewer vehicles on site

S S S S X X X
2 2 2 2 2
4 21 21 21 21
3 3 3 3 3,4 3
100
100
1 1 1
3 2
5/26/26, 4:58 PM Land use matrix. - City of Lake Forest, CA https://ecode360.com/print/LA4954?guid=43971984 1/6
Item: 2
231
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
481
Table 9.72.090(A) Land Use Matrix
Use C I PA UA CAN A1 OS
Automobile Wholesale, with no vehicles on
site

P P P P X X X
Automobile Fueling Station S S X S X X X
Automobile Wrecking and Salvage Yard X X X X X X X
Bar, Cocktail Lounge U X X U X X X
Batting Cages (indoor) S S S S X U U
Billiards Parlor U X X X X X X
Brewery U U X U X X X
Caretaker Quarters X U X X X S X
Car Wash U U X U X X X
Catering Facility P P X P X X X
Cemetery X X X X X U U
Christmas Tree Sales Facility P P P P P P P
Churches, Temples, Religious Institutions
and Other Places of Worship

S S S S X S X
Civic or Government Use S S S S X S S
Club/Meeting Hall, occupancy of
persons or less

S S S S X S X
Club/Meeting Hall, occupancy of more than
persons

S U U S X U X
Commercial Extraction X X X P X X X
Commercial Filming P P P P P P P
Commercial Recreation, Indoor S U U S X U U
Commercial Recreation, Outdoor U U U U X U U
Community Facility U X X U X U X
Composting Facility X X X X X U X
Concrete Batch Plant X U X U X X X
Conference Center S U U S X X X
Conservation Area X X X X P P P
Construction Trailer P P P P P P P
Contractor Storage Yard X U X U X U X
Convalescent Home U X U U X X X
Copy Service, Small P P P P X X X
Copy Service, Large X P X P X X X
Day Care Center S U S S S U X
Dog Daycare U U X U X U X
Donation Center, Attended U U U U X X X
Donation Collection Boxes P P P P X X X
Digital Entertainment P X X P X X X
Distribution Facility X P X P X X X
Drive-Through S S S S X X X
6 6 6 6 4,6 6 6
100
100
8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
6 6 6 6 4,6 6 6
4 3,12 3,12 3,12 3,12
22 22 22 22
5/26/26, 4:58 PM Land use matrix. - City of Lake Forest, CA https://ecode360.com/print/LA4954?guid=43971984 2/6
Item: 2
232
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
482
Table 9.72.090(A) Land Use Matrix
Use C I PA UA CAN A1 OS
Dry Cleaning and Laundry P P X P X X X
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Plant X P X U X X X
Educational Institution U X U U X U X
Emergency Health Service Facility U X U U X X X
Emergency Shelter X P X X X X X
Employee Housing X X X X X P P
Family Daycare Home X X X X X P X
Farmer's Market S S S S S S X
Financial Institution P P P P X X X
Fortune Telling P P P P X X X
Freight Terminal and/or Transfer Station X U X U X X X
Funeral Home U U U U X U X
Golf Course X X X X X U U
Grazing X X X X X P P
Health Club P U X P X X X
Heliport X U X U X U X
Helistop U U U U X U U
Hookah Lounge U X X X X X X
Hospital U U U U X X X
Hotel S U X S X X X
Instructional Studio P U U P X X X
Kennel U U X U X U X
Late Night Use U U U U X U X
Laundry Facility, Coin-Operated P X X P X X X
Laundry Plant X P X U X X X
Library P P P P X S U
Manufacturing X P X P X X X
Marijuana Testing Lab X X X X X X X
Massage Establishment U X X U X X X
Materials Recovery Facility X U X U X X X
Mausoleum X X X X X U U
Medical Office P P P P X X X
Mining X X X P X S X
Minisatellite Wagering Facility U X X X X X X
Mortuary U U U U X U X
Movie Theater S U U S X X X
Museum P U P P X S U
Nightclub U X X X X X X
Nursery U U X U S S U
10 24 24
3,12 3,12 3,12 3,12
23 15 15
8 8
17 4
5/26/26, 4:58 PM Land use matrix. - City of Lake Forest, CA https://ecode360.com/print/LA4954?guid=43971984 3/6
Item: 2
233
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
483
Table 9.72.090(A) Land Use Matrix
Use C I PA UA CAN A1 OS
Office, Administrative, Business or
Professional

P P P P X X X
Office, Medical P P P P X X X
Open Space P P P P P P P
Outdoor Dining A A X A X X A
Outdoor Display S X X S X X X
Outdoor Storage S S X S S S S
Outdoor Vending P P P P X X X
Parking Lot or Structure S S S S X X U
Park P P P P P P P
Pawnbroker P X X P X X X
Personal Care Service P X S P X X X
Pet Grooming P P P P X X X
Pet Shop P X X P X X X
Pharmacy P X X P X X X
Playground A A A A A A P
Power Supply Facility P P P P P P P
Public Utility P P P P S S S
Pumpkin Sales P P P P P P P
Quarrying X X X P X S X
Quarters for Employee Temporary Use X X X X X S X
Recreational Vehicle Storage X U X U X U X
Recycling Collection Facility, Accessory P X X P X X X
Recycling Collection Facility, Major X U X X X X X
Recycling Collection Facility, Minor U U X U X X X
Rental, Repair and Storage Yard for
Construction, Farming and Industrial
Vehicles/Equipment

X U X U X U X
Research, Testing and Development Lab P P P P S U X
Residential Care Facility X X X X X P X
Restaurant P X X P X X U
Restaurant with Bar P X X P X X X
Retail Business P A X P X X U
Retail Business, Internet P P P P X X X
Riding and Hiking Trail P P P P P P P
School, Commercial or Vocational U U U U X X X
Second Hand Dealer P X X P X X X
Self Storage U U X U X U X
Service Business P X U P X X X
Shooting Range, Indoor X U X U X X X
Shooting Range, Outdoor X X X X X X X
1 1,20 1 1
5 5 5 5
18 18
3 3 3 3
3 3
1 1 1 1 1 1
19 19 19 19 19 19 19
4 6 6 6 6 4,6 6 6
8 8
4 25
20 1
20 5/26/26, 4:58 PM Land use matrix. - City of Lake Forest, CA https://ecode360.com/print/LA4954?guid=43971984 4/6
Item: 2
234
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
484
Table 9.72.090(A) Land Use Matrix
Use C I PA UA CAN A1 OS
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) S U X S X X X
Single Season Agricultural Sales P P P P P P P
Smog Check U P X U X X X
Smoke Shop P X X P X X X
Smoking Lounge U X X U X X X
Solid Waste Transfer Station X X X X X X X
Specialty Automotive Repair or Service,
Heavy

X U X X X X X
Specialty Automotive Repair or Service,
Light

U P X U X X X
Stable, Commercial X X X X X U U
Storage Container S S S S S S S
Storage of Automobiles, Trucks, Trailers,
Boats, Motorcycles and Other Types of
Vehicles and Equipment

X U X U X U X
Studio for Motion Picture, Video, Audio, and
Television Recording

P P P P X X X
Surface Mining X X X P X S X
Swap Meet/Flea Market U U U U X U X
Swim Facility U U U U X U U
Tattoo Studio P P X X X X X
Temporary Commercial Building S S S S S S S
Theatre U U U U X X X
Thrift Store P A X P X X U
Towing Facility X U X U X X X
Utility, Public or Private P P P P S S S
Vending Machine, Indoors A A A A A A X
Vending Machine, Outdoors S S S S X X X
Veterinary Office P P P P P P X
Warehouse X P X P X X X
Welding Shop X P X X X X X
Wholesale Business X P A P X X X
Winery U U X U X X X
Wireless Communication Facility P P P P P P P
Wholesale Nursery U U X U S S X
Land Use Matrix Legend
C=Commercial OS=Open Space
I=Industrial A=Permitted as an Accessory Use
PA=Professional and Administrative Office P=Permitted Use UA=Urban Activity S=Permitted with a Site Development Permit (SDP) CAN=Canyon Commercial U=Permitted with a Use Permit (UP) 13 13 13
6 6 6 6 4,6 6 6
6 6 6 6 4,6 6 6
8 8
6 6 6 6 4,6 6 6
11 1,11 11 11
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 3,4 3
1 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
4 5/26/26, 4:58 PM Land use matrix. - City of Lake Forest, CA https://ecode360.com/print/LA4954?guid=43971984 5/6
Item: 2
235
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
485
B.

Land Use Matrix Legend
A1=Agriculture X=Prohibited Use
Footnotes

1. The accessory use shall be incidental, related and clearly subordinate to the main use of the lot or building. Must not comprise more than 15% of the total floor area of principal use.

2. Subject to regulations in Chapter 9.08 (Adult Business Zoning Regulations).

3. Subject to regulations in Section 9.146.020 (Animal service businesses).

4. Subject to regulations in Chapter 9.228 (Canyon Commercial District).

5. Subject to regulations in Chapter 9.182 (Outdoor Vending on Private Property).

6. Subject to regulations in Section 9.144.070 (Temporary uses and structures).

7. (Deleted).

8. Subject to regulations set forth in Baker Ranch Planned Community Section V and LFMC Chapter 9.150 (Surface Mining and Land Reclamation Regulations).

9. Subject to regulations in Section 5.28.150 (Permit requirements for commercial motion picture productions, television productions and still photography).

10. Subject to regulations in Section 9.146.120 (Emergency shelters).

11. Subject to regulations in Section 9.146.200 (Thrift Stores).

12. Subject to regulations in Section 9.146.030 (Pets and animals).

13. Subject to regulations in Section 9.146.150 (Single-room occupancy).

14. Subject to regulations in Chapter 9.162 (Wireless Communication Facilities).

15. Subject to regulations in Chapter 5.07 (Massage Establishments).

16. (Deleted).

17. Subject to regulations in Chapter 5.36 (Entertainment Permits).

18. Subject to regulations in Section 5.02.020 (Licenses or permits required).

19. Subject to regulations in Chapter 9.166 (Cable System Power Supply Facilities Design and Placement).

20. A limited amount of service commercial and restaurant uses are allowed in the Business Park Zone of the Pacific Commercentre Planned Community. See exception noted in Section II.B. of the Pacific Commercentre Planned Community.

21. Subject to regulations in Section 9.146.130 (Additional findings for the sale of alcohol for off-site consumption). The sale of alcohol for off-site consumption may also be subject to the City Council policy regarding public convenience or necessity, as amended.

22. Subject to regulations provided in Chapter 9.142 (Donation Collection Boxes).

23. Marijuana testing labs rendered legal nonconforming by Ordinance No. 347 are subject to regulations provided in Chapter 5.42 (Marijuana Testing Labs).

24. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6 et seq.

25. In accordance with Chapter 5.44 (Residential Care Facilities).

Any use not permitted by Section 9.72.090(A), land use matrix, is specifically prohibited. (Ord. 243 § 6, 2012; Ord. 250 § 2, 2013; Ord. 257 § 1, 2013; Ord. 275 § 6, 2015; Ord. 276 § 2, 2015; Ord. 282 §§ 4—6, 2016; Ord. 284 § 2, 2016; Ord. 297 § 7, 2017; Ord. 302 § 25, 2018; Ord. 331 § 7, 2020; Ord. 333 §§ 8, 9, 2020; Ord. 334 §§ 5, 6, 2020; Ord. 347 § 7, 2021; Ord. 363 § 12, 2023; Ord. 374, 2/4/2025; Ord. 378, 6/17/2025; Ord. 378, 6/17/2025) 5/26/26, 4:58 PM Land use matrix. - City of Lake Forest, CA https://ecode360.com/print/LA4954?guid=43971984 6/6
Item: 2
236
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
486
PC Attachment 7
Item: 2
237
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
487
From: Cherie Liu
To: EnterpriseProjects; Planning Commission
Subject: Re: City of Lake Forest Notice of Public Hearing (IPT Industrial Project- 26200 Enterprise Way) Date: Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:56:34 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my opposition to the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project at 26200 Enterprise Way and to the approval of Site Development Permit 06-21-5437.

My family lives immediately adjacent to the proposed project area. We are deeply concerned that the proposed industrial/warehouse use would place truck traffic, loading activity, diesel emissions, operational noise, lighting, and other industrial impacts directly next to existing and newly built residential homes, including nearby senior housing.

At this stage, I respectfully ask the Planning Commission not to certify the Final EIR or approve the Site Development Permit at the upcoming hearing. At minimum, the Commission should continue the item and require additional analysis, enforceable project revisions, and stronger conditions of approval.

In particular, I ask the City and Planning Commission to address the following issues before any approval is considered:

1. Whether the project would allow 24/7 operation, nighttime loading, early morning activity, or weekend industrial activity;

2. The expected number of daily truck trips and the specific truck routes;

3. The location and orientation of loading docks, truck staging areas, trash compactors, and backup alarms relative to nearby homes;

4. Diesel particulate matter and air quality impacts on adjacent residents, children, and seniors;

5. Operational noise impacts, not only construction noise;

6. Whether warehouse/distribution uses will be restricted or broadly allowed for future tenants;

7. Whether stronger sound walls, landscape buffers, building design changes, and monitoring requirements will be imposed;

8. Whether lower-impact alternatives, such as office, R&D, or light industrial uses with strict operating limits, have been meaningfully considered.

Item: 2
238
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
488
I am also concerned that the City is considering a Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the project has significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, the Commission should not override those impacts based on generalized economic or redevelopment benefits without first requiring a less harmful project design and more protective conditions for the residents who will bear the long-term consequences.

Please include this comment in the official public record for the hearing. I also reserve the right to submit additional comments after the agenda report, staff report, proposed conditions of approval, CEQA findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations are made available.

Sincerely,
Cherie
From: EnterpriseProjects <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 15:56
Subject: City of Lake Forest Notice of Public Hearing (IPT Industrial Project- 26200 Enterprise Way) Good afternoon,
This email is being sent to you because you are on the City’s interest list for Site Development Permit (SDP) 06-21-5437, for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new industrial building located at 26200 Enterprise Way. The Planning Commission will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the SDP 06-21-5437 for the IPT Industrial Project. Attached to this email is the notice of public hearing to be held by the Planning Commission for this project. Please review the attached notice for details.

As noted in the notice of public hearing, the meeting agenda (which will include the agenda report) will be available on the City’s website the Friday before the meeting.

Members of the public may submit email comments to
[email protected]. Email comments will be uploaded to the agenda packet and made part of the official public record of the meeting but will not be read at the meeting. To ensure staff reviews all comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting, please submit email comments no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

For additional information about this project, please contact Jennifer Mansur, Senior Planner, at (949) 461-3472 or via e-mail at [email protected] Item: 2
239
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
489
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
240
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
490
From: Patricia
To: EnterpriseProjects
Subject: RE: City of Lake Forest Notice of Public Hearing (IPT Industrial Project- 26200 Enterprise Way) Date: Thursday, May 21, 2026 5:25:28 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Thank you. I have no further comments or concerns.

From: EnterpriseProjects <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 3:37 PM
Subject: City of Lake Forest Notice of Public Hearing (IPT Industrial Project- 26200 Enterprise Way) Good afternoon,
This email is being sent to you because you are on the City’s interest list for Site Development Permit (SDP) 06-21-5437, for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new industrial building located at 26200 Enterprise Way. The Planning Commission will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the SDP 06-21-5437 for the IPT Industrial Project. Attached to this email is the notice of public hearing to be held by the Planning Commission for this project. Please review the attached notice for details.

As noted in the notice of public hearing, the meeting agenda (which will include the agenda report) will be available on the City’s website the Friday before the meeting.

For additional information about this project, please contact Jennifer Mansur, Senior Planner, at (949) 461-3472 or via e-mail at [email protected] CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
241
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
491
From: Gordon Hu
To: Planning Commission
Subject: serious concerns regarding the proposed IPT Industrial Project (SDP 06-21-5437) Date: Friday, May 22, 2026 11:59:33 PM
To the Honorable Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed IPT Industrial Project (SDP 06-21-5437) located at 26200 Enterprise Way, including certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the proposed industrial development.

While I understand the importance of economic development, I respectfully believe that significant unresolved environmental, traffic, operational, and public safety concerns remain.

Based on the current record, I do not believe the City has demonstrated that the impacts of this project have been adequately analyzed or mitigated.

My primary concern is that the project is being approved without identifying the future tenant or clearly defining the future operational intensity of the site. The project description states that “the tenant has not been determined yet” and that the facility may include office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses. This creates substantial uncertainty regarding the actual environmental impacts of the project, including truck traffic, emissions, noise, operating hours, loading activity, hazardous materials usage, and cumulative impacts on nearby communities.

A light industrial office user would generate dramatically different impacts than a highintensity logistics, e-commerce fulfillment, manufacturing, or distribution operator. Without knowing the likely tenant or imposing enforceable operational limitations, the environmental analysis appears speculative and may underestimate the project’s actual long-term impacts.

I respectfully request clarification on the following issues:

1. What specific operational assumptions were used in the traffic, air quality, and noise analyses?

2. What guarantees exist to ensure future tenants cannot exceed those assumptions?

3. Will the project permit 24-hour warehouse or logistics operations?

4. What restrictions exist regarding truck volumes, loading dock activity, trailer storage, or overnight operations?
Item: 2
242
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
492

5. What types of manufacturing uses are permitted under the proposed approval?

6. Will hazardous materials storage or processing be allowed in the future?

7. How were cumulative industrial impacts evaluated, particularly given the continuing expansion of warehouse and logistics facilities throughout Orange County? Truck traffic and public safety impacts are particularly concerning. The project itself acknowledges the need for off-site intersection improvements to address truck turning movements. This strongly suggests that truck-related impacts are already expected to be significant. Increased truck traffic may negatively affect nearby residents, local circulation, pedestrian safety, emergency response times, air quality, and overall quality of life.

Recent industrial hazardous material emergencies in Garden Grove, Orange County further demonstrate why communities must carefully evaluate long-term industrial intensification, unknown future operations, and emergency preparedness before approving major industrial developments. While this project may not involve the same type of operations, the recent incident highlights the importance of fully understanding future industrial uses before granting broad development approvals.

I am also concerned that the City is being asked to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Such a statement acknowledges that significant environmental impacts may remain unavoidable. Before approving such findings, the City should ensure that all feasible mitigation measures, operational restrictions, and project alternatives have been thoroughly evaluated.

At a minimum, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider the following conditions or revisions before any approval:

Binding limits on truck traffic and loading operations
Restrictions on overnight truck activity
Clear operational limitations tied to the environmental assumptions used in the EIR Prohibition or limitation of hazardous material uses
Additional cumulative traffic and air quality analysis
Enhanced landscaping, noise buffering, and community protections Ongoing compliance monitoring and enforcement mechanisms Item: 2
243
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
493
Given the unresolved uncertainties regarding future operations and cumulative impacts, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to delay certification of the Final EIR and approval of the project until these concerns are adequately addressed.

Thank you for your consideration and for allowing public participation in this important matter.

Sincerely,
Gordon Hu
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
244
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
494
From: Connie Ding
To: Planning Commission; Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: Concerns Regarding IPT Enterprise Business Center Project (SDP 06-21-5437) Date: Saturday, May 23, 2026 8:02:24 AM
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for the time and effort you dedicate to serving the Lake Forest community.

I am writing to respectfully express my continued concerns regarding the proposed IPT Enterprise Business Center Project (SDP 06-21-5437), including certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval of the proposed industrial development at 26200 Enterprise Way.

I understand that economic development and job creation are important goals for our city.

However, I believe there are still significant unanswered questions regarding the long-term environmental, operational, and public safety impacts of this project — especially given that the future tenant and the full nature of future operations remain unknown.

Over the past several weeks, two serious industrial incidents in Southern California have made these concerns feel far more immediate and personal to many residents. The chemical emergency in Garden Grove and the warehouse fire in Ontario serve as reminders that industrial operations involving hazardous materials or intensive logistics activity can create risks that extend well beyond the project site itself.

While I understand this project may not involve the same type of operations, these recent events highlight why careful planning, transparency, and long-term safeguards are so important before approving large industrial developments near homes and neighborhoods.

One of my primary concerns is that the project is being approved without a clearly identified tenant. The EIR states that the facility may include office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, but these uses can generate dramatically different impacts related to truck traffic, air quality, noise, operating hours, hazardous materials, and emergency preparedness.

Without knowing the future tenant or establishing enforceable operational limitations now, it is difficult for residents to fully understand what this project may eventually become.

I am also concerned that the Final EIR acknowledges significant and unavoidable impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, yet the project may still proceed through adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. If unavoidable impacts remain, I respectfully ask the Commission to carefully evaluate whether all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures have truly been exhausted.

In particular, I respectfully request further consideration of the following:
• Clear operational limits tied to the assumptions used in the EIR • Restrictions on overnight truck activity and loading operations • Additional cumulative health and air quality analysis • Stronger emergency preparedness requirements for future tenants • Greater oversight regarding hazardous material storage or processing • Long-term accountability measures for property owners and operators Item: 2
245
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
495
• Additional landscaping, buffering, and neighborhood protections I also respectfully ask the Commission to consider whether additional review should occur before permits are issued for future high-intensity industrial or hazardous material uses, particularly if the eventual tenant differs substantially from the assumptions analyzed in the EIR.

This project is located near existing neighborhoods and within a community already experiencing growing industrial activity. Many residents are not opposed to all development, but they do want assurance that future operations will be compatible with surrounding homes and that public safety has been fully considered.

I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to proceed cautiously and ensure that all reasonable protections, mitigation measures, and operational safeguards are in place before approving this project.

Thank you for your consideration, your public service, and your attention to the concerns of the community.

Sincerely,
Connie Ding
May 23, 2026
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
246
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
496
From: May Cai
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Strong Opposition to the IPT Industrial Project at 26200 Enterprise Way Date: Saturday, May 23, 2026 9:01:59 AM
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed IPT Industrial Project at 26200 Enterprise Way.

The roads surrounding this area are already narrow and heavily used by local residents.

Constructing a large industrial warehouse will inevitably bring significant truck traffic, which will severely worsen congestion and make access to nearby highways extremely difficult for residents. Daily commuting could become a nightmare for the surrounding community.

In addition, the increase in truck activity and industrial operations will create substantial noise, nighttime light pollution, and air pollution, all of which will negatively impact the health, safety, and quality of life of nearby residents and families.

Beyond traffic and pollution concerns, there is also a serious public safety issue. In recent years, multiple large warehouse fires have occurred due to leaks, hazardous materials, equipment failures, and other industrial accidents. These incidents have caused devastating fires, toxic smoke, and emergency evacuations in nearby communities.

Placing a massive industrial warehouse so close to residential neighborhoods creates unnecessary risk for families living nearby. Residents should not have to live with constant fear about whether an industrial accident, fire, or hazardous leak could happen next to their homes. People deserve to feel safe in their own community and be able to sleep peacefully at night.

What concerns me most is that the City appears to already recognize many of these serious impacts through the Environmental Impact Report process, yet the project continues to move forward. I respectfully ask: why would a city called “Lake Forest” move in a direction that harms the very environment and peaceful community character that its name represents? Lake Forest is a beautiful city. Many families chose to live here because of its livability, environment, and community atmosphere. Approving this project risks permanently damaging those qualities.

I strongly urge the Planning Commission and City officials to reject this project and prioritize the long-term well-being, safety, and health of residents over industrial expansion.

Thank you for your consideration.

May Cai
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
247
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
497
From: Bin Zhou
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to IPT Industrial Project at 26200 Enterprise Way Date: Saturday, May 23, 2026 11:19:40 AM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
On behalf of myself and many residents who care deeply about the future of our community, I would like to express our strong opposition to the IPT Industrial Project warehouse development located at 26200 Enterprise Way.

First, this project would place an unacceptable burden on the surrounding transportation system. The roads in this area are already narrow and have long been heavily used by local residents for daily commuting and travel. Once a large industrial warehouse begins operations, the frequent movement of heavy-duty trucks will inevitably worsen traffic congestion, increase road safety hazards, and make it extremely difficult for residents to access nearby highways. What is currently a quiet residential neighborhood would be fundamentally transformed by industrial transportation traffic.

Second, the project would have long-term and far-reaching negative impacts on the quality of life for nearby residents. The noise generated by around-the-clock warehouse operations, nighttime lighting, vehicle emissions, and air pollution would not only disrupt the peace of the community, but could also pose ongoing health risks to seniors, children, and families.

Residents chose to make their homes in Lake Forest because of its pleasant environment and livable atmosphere—not to live surrounded by industrial facilities and constant freight traffic.

Even more concerning are the significant public safety risks associated with this project. In recent years, there have been multiple fires at large warehouse facilities across the United States, some involving hazardous materials storage, equipment failures, and the spread of toxic smoke, even resulting in emergency evacuations of nearby residents. These incidents clearly demonstrate that large industrial warehouses are not “low-risk projects.” Constructing a facility of this scale adjacent to residential neighborhoods would undoubtedly expose nearby families to ongoing potential dangers.

It is also disappointing that, despite the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) seemingly identifying many of the project’s potential negative impacts, the project continues to move forward. This raises serious concerns about whether the city government is truly prioritizing the health, safety, and quality of life of its residents.

Lake Forest has long been known for its beautiful environment, safe neighborhoods, and high quality of life. Many families chose to live and invest here because of these valuable qualities.

However, if this project is approved, the city’s community environment, ecological quality, and residents’ living experience could suffer irreversible damage.

I strongly urge the Planning Commission and city officials to carefully listen to residents’ concerns, reevaluate the long-term impacts of this project, and ultimately reject this industrial warehouse proposal. The health, safety, and quality of life of community residents should never become sacrifices for industrial expansion and profit.

Thank you for your attention to and consideration of the concerns expressed by community Item: 2
248
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
498
residents.

Sincerely,
Respectfully submitted
Bin Zhou
, Lake Forest CA 92630
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
249
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
499
From: ZHAN Jack
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Comment on Public Hearing (IPT Industrial Project- 26200 Enterprise Way) Date: Saturday, May 23, 2026 3:20:36 PM
Dear The City's Planning Commission (Lake Forest)
My name is Shunhua ZHAN, home owner and resident at , Lake Forest, CA 92630, and I strongly oppose the proposed 26200 Enterprise Way IPT Industrial Project.

This project is simply too large and too intense for the surrounding community, including the Meadows subdivision in particular. It will bring more truck traffic, more noise, more air pollution, and more safety risks to nearby neighborhoods and local roads. Residents are already dealing with congestion and poor air quality, and this project will make those problems worse.

Industrial warehouse projects like this could operate around the clock. That means heavy trucks at all hours, constant loading activity, bright lighting, and increased wear on streets that were never designed for this level of heavy industrial use. Families who live nearby should not have to sacrifice their health and quality of life so another large industrial facility can be built.

I am also concerned about the environmental impacts. More truck traffic means more emissions, especially near homes, schools, and parks. Communities like ours already carry an unfair burden from industrial development. Approving another major project without stronger protections only continues that pattern.

In addition, this project does not appear to provide any benefits to the local community while the environmental and traffic impacts remain for decades.

We should be focusing on responsible development that improves the community, protects public health, and respects the people who already live and work here — not projects that increase pollution and industrial congestion.

I urge the decision makers to reject the 26200 Enterprise Way IPT Industrial Project.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,
Item: 2
250
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
500
Shunhua ZHAN
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
251
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
501
From: Haibo Jiang
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Warehouse Developments Adjacent to the Meadows Residential Community Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 3:13:25 PM
Attachments: Proposed_Warehouses_Proximity_to_Meadows_Residential_Community.png Dear Planning Commissioners,
My name is Harrison Jiang, and I am a resident of the Meadows at Lake Forest and President of We the Meadows, a community organization representing many residents of our neighborhood, as well as supporting neighboring homeowners from Baker Ranch, Foothill Ranch, Serrano Summit, and surrounding communities who are concerned about the proposed warehouse developments adjacent to our homes.

On behalf of many residents, families, and seniors in our Lake Forest community, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to carefully reconsider approval of the proposed warehouse projects and the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR).

After reviewing the Final EIR and the responses to comments submitted by agencies, consultants, organizations, and residents, we remain deeply concerned that many significant environmental and neighborhood impacts have not been fully addressed.

Attached please find:

1. A community proximity map illustrating the relationship between the proposed warehouse developments, the Meadows residential neighborhood, and nearby senior apartments; and

2. A community awareness graphic reflecting resident concerns regarding warehouse development immediately adjacent to homes.

The proximity map below illustrates the unusually close relationship between the proposed warehouse developments (outlined in red and blue), the Meadows residential neighborhood (outlined in orange), and nearby senior housing (outlined in purple). In some locations, the closest distance from residential homes to proposed warehouse structures is approximately 100 feet wall-to-wall, while nearby senior housing is approximately 230 feet wall-to-wall from proposed warehouse development areas, with planned truck ingress/egress routes and associated truck traffic located between the structures. The map also illustrates the cumulative concentration of warehouse and industrial development surrounding the community.

Item: 2
252
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
502
Residents remain deeply concerned that the Final EIR understates the real-world impacts these projects would have on nearby homes, families, seniors, and overall neighborhood livability.

Several important concerns remain unresolved in the Final EIR:

1. Unknown Future Operations and Tenant
The City acknowledges that the future tenant(s) are unknown, yet the EIR assumes specific truck volumes, operational intensity, emissions, manufacturing characteristics, and noise levels. Without knowing the actual tenant operations, residents cannot reasonably rely on the accuracy of the projected impacts. For example, the EIR assumes generalized warehouse and manufacturing operations even though the ultimate tenant, operational schedule, and industrial activities remain unidentified.

2. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Remain
The Final EIR acknowledges significant and unavoidable impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions. Although mitigation measures were proposed, the EIR indicates that impacts remain significant even after mitigation, raising serious concerns regarding long-term compatibility with nearby residential communities.

3. Air Quality and Health Concerns
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) raised concerns regarding truck idling assumptions and modeling methodology used in the health risk analysis. For example, SCAQMD questioned the assumption of 15-minute truck idling durations and recommended additional analysis, yet portions of the modeling were not revised despite those concerns. Given the project’s close proximity to homes and senior housing, residents believe a more conservative and transparent health risk assessment is warranted.

4. Noise and Quality-of-Life Impacts
Item: 2
253
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
503
Warehouse operations involve truck traffic, loading activities, backup alarms, braking noise, trailer impacts, and potentially nighttime operations. Residents remain concerned that the EIR understates the real-world impacts these industrial activities would have on nearby homes, sleep, peace, and neighborhood livability. While the EIR relies heavily on average noise thresholds, residents remain concerned about repeated nighttime disturbances and operational noise immediately adjacent to homes.

5. Cumulative Warehouse Concentration
Residents are deeply concerned not only about a single project, but also the cumulative concentration of warehouse and logistics development surrounding residential neighborhoods in this area. The combined burden of truck traffic, emissions, industrial activity, and noise deserves greater consideration, particularly given the close proximity of multiple warehouse developments surrounding the Meadows community.

6. Environmentally Superior Alternative Was Rejected
The Final EIR acknowledges that a reduced project alternative would be environmentally superior, yet it was rejected primarily for economic and project-objective reasons. Residents should not bear substantial environmental and neighborhood impacts when less intensive alternatives exist.

7. Compatibility with Residential Neighborhoods
The repeated assertion that industrial zoning predated residential development does not eliminate the City’s responsibility under CEQA to evaluate actual environmental and qualityof-life impacts on existing residents. Modern high-intensity warehouse operations are fundamentally different from traditional industrial uses and should not automatically be considered compatible with nearby homes.

We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to carefully consider whether these projects, in their current form, truly reflect responsible land-use planning and appropriate compatibility with established residential communities.

At minimum, we urge the Commission to:

Require substantially greater setbacks and buffering from homes and senior housing;
Require stricter operational limitations and truck controls; Reevaluate cumulative, health, and noise impacts;
Consider substantially reduced project alternatives; and Prioritize residents’ health, safety, and quality of life.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the Lake Forest community.

Respectfully,
Harrison Jiang
Resident, Meadows at Lake Forest
President, We the Meadows
Item: 2
254
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
504
Attachment: Community_Awareness_Graphic_Warehouses_Adjacency_Concerns.jpeg CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
255
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
505
From: Connie Ding
To: Planning Commission; Mansur, Jennifer; Stonich, Amy; Stannard, Michael; Ackerman, Gayle Subject: Please Take AQMD and Caltrans Professional Comments Seriously Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 8:57:52 PM
Dear Planning commissioners,
After reading through the comments submitted by AQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) and Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) on this project’s Environmental Impact Report, one thing really stood out to us:

For most of the major concerns raised by these agencies, the applicant’s response was basically “no changes needed.”
AQMD pointed out that the air quality modeling used outdated data and recommended updating the analysis with the latest version. Instead of rerunning the modeling, the applicant simply stated that “the results would not change.”
AQMD also raised concerns that truck idling times may have been underestimated and suggested using more realistic assumptions. The applicant did not provide actual operational data to support the 15-minute estimate, and instead responded that “even if doubled, emissions would still remain below thresholds.”
AQMD recommended several practical mitigation measures, including limiting truck numbers, encouraging zero-emission trucks, and adding stricter operational requirements. Most of these suggestions were rejected, while only voluntary “encouragement measures” that would not significantly affect operations were kept.

Caltrans noted that nearby bicycle infrastructure was missing from the project documents. The applicant responded that those issues were “outside the scope of study.”
Caltrans also suggested improving transit accessibility. The response was simply that the applicant would “continue coordination” in the future, without any specific commitments.

Item: 2
256
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
506
Commissioners, at this point, the issue goes beyond technical details.

The bigger question is this:

When two highly qualified government agencies with direct responsibilities in these areas recommend improvements, why were nearly all of those recommendations dismissed?
AQMD is responsible for air quality and public health.

Caltrans is responsible for transportation safety and infrastructure.

These are not just regular public comments.

These are expert agencies providing professional guidance.

If recommendations from these agencies can be brushed aside with responses like “already sufficient,” “not necessary,” or “would not change the outcome,” then what is the environmental review process really accomplishing? The people of Lake Forest will be the ones living with the impacts: increased air pollution, more truck traffic, added noise, and potential health risks.

We respectfully ask the Commission:

Please do not simply accept the claim that “the analysis is sufficient.” Please give AQMD’s and Caltrans’s comments the serious consideration they deserve;
Please require the applicant to fully address these concerns instead of dismissing them;
Please require more complete and transparent analysis and stronger mitigation measures before certifying the EIR.

We hope your decision reflects that Lake Forest values responsible planning and puts residents first.

Thank you.

Jason Ye
Item: 2
257
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
507
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
258
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
508
1 Weiss, Jennifer
From: Mindy Li
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2026 10:30 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer; Stannard, Michael; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Grable, Tom
Subject: Request to Delay Certification of the IPT Enterprise Business Center EIR Due to Serious Deviations from California Attorney General Warehouse Guidelines Dear Commissioners,
We respectfully urge the Commission to delay certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the IPT Enterprise Business Center project.

The reason is straightforward:

This project significantly deviates from the California Attorney General’s 2022 official guidance document, Warehousing Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), yet neither the applicant nor the City has provided a convincing explanation for these deviations.

This is no longer just a typical development project.

It is now a question of whether the City of Lake Forest is willing to disregard official state environmental guidance, expose residents to long-term pollution impacts, and undermine the very purpose of CEQA review.

Most alarming of all:

The California Attorney General’s guidance, citing CARB recommendations, clearly states that warehouse facilities should be located at least 1,000 feet away from sensitive receptors such as residential neighborhoods.

This project is approximately 82 feet from the nearest homes.

Not 800 feet.Not 500 feet.But 82 feet.

That is less than one-tenth of the distance recommended by the State.

Yet the EIR barely addresses what this extraordinary deviation means for nearby residents.

The Commission must answer a very basic question:

If 82 feet is considered “safe,” then why does the State recommend 1,000 feet? Item: 2
259
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
509
2 And if official State guidance can simply be ignored, then what exactly is the purpose of the CEQA review process?
In addition, the project falls far below State-recommended standards in several key mitigation areas:
• 23 loading docks, but only 4 electric truck charging spaces — and even those are merely “reserved for future installation”• No requirement for zero-emission drayage trucks by 2030• No residential air filtration program• No community air monitoring station• No enforceable truck route enforcement mechanism• No meaningful peak-noise analysis• No designated community compliance officer• No public complaint response system Even more concerning:

AQMD and Caltrans submitted multiple professional recommendations and concerns regarding this project, yet the applicant dismissed most of them with responses such as “no changes necessary,” “already sufficient,” or “would not change the outcome.” The Commission should seriously consider the implications of this.

If even expert agencies like AQMD and Caltrans can be brushed aside so easily, how can residents have confidence that this environmental review process is truly objective and meaningful? What the Commission is facing now is not simply a warehouse approval decision.

It is a matter of public accountability and legal responsibility.

If residents are later forced to live with years of increased diesel pollution, truck traffic, nighttime noise, and health impacts, the public will remember that:

The State provided clear https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http3A__guidance.Expert&d=DwIGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOfv5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=iMzdwJXaxx1olUq8AVTvSnsHarkqRPj6R6ohs1IRpAcBrkBJGeHpP4xW2tXdX I9V&m=ncZyTneA8nQEAeSPIhXD7UdJeGOHAElqtBGxqlypYEQK_6eWOnmqfr6dk8V7MFl4&s=96 RkT97BSHWMfCxPRl3S_ArfvgWeVCed2WWAVWWdZ68&e= agencies issued clear warnings.And the Commission still chose to approve the project.

Therefore, we formally request that the Commission:

Delay certification of the EIR until the following issues are fully addressed:
• A complete peak-noise analysis, including backup alarms, air brakes, and nighttime loading impacts• A legally enforceable truck-route monitoring and penalty program• A full environmental justice analysis that does not dismiss impacts simply because the neighborhood is not officially classified as “disadvantaged”• A revised health-risk evaluation addressing the project’s extremely close proximity to homes
Item: 2
260
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
510
3 Require the applicant to provide written responses to the Attorney General guidance deviations, including:
• Why is 82 feet considered acceptable when the State recommends 1,000 feet?• Why are only 4 charging spaces proposed for 23 loading docks?• Why is there no binding zero-emission truck requirement by 2030?• Why are no residential air filtration measures proposed?• Why is there no publicly accessible community compliance officer or complaint system? If the project continues moving forward, require legally binding conditions including:
• Mandatory zero-emission drayage trucks by 2030• Separate City approval for any tenant involving hazardous materials• A public complaint and enforcement system• Operator responsibility for truck-route violations
Commissioners,
Your decision will shape the environmental quality of Lake Forest for decades to come.

Residents are not opposed to development.

But residents have the right to expect that development is responsible, consistent with State best practices, and prioritizes public health over developer convenience.

Please do not allow Lake Forest to become an example of a city that ignored clear State guidance and approved a project despite known risks.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Mindy Li
Lake Forest
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
261
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
511
From: sam.yu
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer; Stannard, Michael; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Grable, Tom Subject: Strong Opposition to the Proposed Warehouse Project Near Residential Community Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:14:40 AM
Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed warehouse project planned approximately 100 meters behind our residential community.

First, the intended use of this warehouse has still not been clearly defined, yet the City is already moving forward with the approval process. Advancing a large industrial project without full transparency, complete information, and thorough environmental review has caused serious concern among residents.

The California Attorney General’s Office has explicitly cited guidance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which states:
“Warehouse projects should be located at least 1,000 feet from sensitive receptors.”
Our residential neighborhood is located only about 100 meters from the proposed project site, far below CARB’s recommended buffer distance. If the City chooses to ignore the recommendations of state environmental experts and proceeds with approval, it would place the health and safety of residents at significant risk.

If approved, this warehouse project would bring severe long-term impacts to the community, including:
• Diesel truck air pollution
• Continuous noise pollution
• Traffic congestion and road safety concerns
• Increased homeowners insurance costs
• Declining property values
Item: 2
262
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
512
• Increased health risks for children, seniors, and residents Even more concerning is the fact that the future storage use of the warehouse has not been clearly disclosed. If hazardous chemicals, flammable materials, or other dangerous goods are eventually stored onsite, the consequences of an accident could be devastating.

Recent incidents such as the Garden Grove chemical spill and warehouse fires demonstrate the real risks associated with large industrial storage facilities. If a similar chemical leak, fire, or hazardous materials incident were to occur near our homes, schools, and families, who would be held accountable? In addition, I am deeply concerned about the project’s outdated and inadequate approach to cumulative impact analysis.

The environmental document acknowledges that this project will create combined impacts with the nearby “Western Realco” industrial project.

However, the cumulative projects list was effectively frozen after the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued in March 2024 and has not been meaningfully updated since then.

This approach is unreasonable.

Environmental review processes often continue for one or even two years.

During that time, additional industrial, warehouse, or infrastructure projects may be proposed nearby. By relying on an outdated cumulative projects list and claiming that “future projects will be evaluated separately,” the environmental review risks significantly understating the real cumulative impacts that residents will actually experience.

Residents will not experience these impacts in isolation. We may instead face multiple large-scale projects being constructed and operated simultaneously, resulting in:

Item: 2
263
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
513
• Continuous construction noise from multiple projects
• Combined dust and diesel pollution
• Long-term traffic congestion throughout the area
• Significant increases in heavy truck traffic
• Overall deterioration of community quality of life
The public deserves a dynamic and updated assessment reflecting the full reality of regional development, not a narrowly limited snapshot that understates the true cumulative burden on surrounding neighborhoods.

If residents ultimately suffer years of noise, diesel pollution, traffic impacts, and health consequences, the public will remember:

The State provided clear guidance.

Environmental experts issued clear warnings.

And the Commission still chose to approve the project.

If a major accident or environmental disaster occurs in the future, are those supporting this approval prepared to accept responsibility? Residents are not opposed to responsible development. However, development should never come at the expense of public health, community safety, and quality of life. Constructing a massive warehouse facility so close to residential homes is both unreasonable and irresponsible.

For the health, safety, and future well-being of our community, I respectfully urge the City Council and Planning Commission to reject this warehouse project and require a more thorough and updated evaluation of its long-term impacts on nearby residents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Item: 2
264
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
514
Hu Yu
Lake Forest
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
265
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
515
From:

To: EnterpriseProjects; Planning Commission; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Re: City of Lake Forest Notice of Public Hearing (IPT Industrial Project- 26200 Enterprise Way) Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:09:32 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission,
I am submitting this supplemental comment in opposition to certification of the Final EIR and approval of Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 for the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project at 26200 Enterprise Way.

My family lives immediately adjacent to the proposed project site. If the project is built as proposed, the industrial building and associated operations would be extremely close to residential backyards, approximately 10 feet from some homes.

This is not a normal or acceptable separation between a residential neighborhood and an industrial/warehouse operation with truck activity, loading docks, diesel emissions, operational noise, lighting, and potential hazardous materials risks.

The recent Garden Grove chemical emergency is a clear warning of why land use compatibility matters. An industrial facility located near homes and schools created an emergency involving evacuation, public safety response, health concerns, and potential litigation. Even if such incidents are infrequent, the consequences can be severe and far exceed the economic benefits of a single industrial or warehouse project.

The City should not minimize or dismiss this type of risk simply because the project is located in an area designated for light industrial use. A zoning designation does not eliminate the City’s responsibility to evaluate whether this particular project, at this particular location, is compatible with adjacent residential homes, families, children, and senior residents. The fact that a large industrial/warehouse building may be technically allowed in a light industrial area does not mean it is appropriate when the building and operations are placed only feet from residential backyards.

I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to consider the following issues before taking any action:

1. The Final EIR does not adequately address the real-world consequences of placing an industrial/warehouse operation immediately next to residential backyards.

2. The City should not certify the Final EIR unless it has fully evaluated reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, including hazardous materials incidents, fire, chemical storage or handling by future tenants, emergency access, evacuation issues, and impacts on adjacent residents.

3. The City should not rely on generalized assumptions about future tenant operations. If future tenants could include manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, or other industrial uses, the environmental analysis and conditions of approval must address those actual operational risks now.

4. The project should not be approved without strict and enforceable limits on hazardous materials storage, use, handling, and transport. Any future tenant Item: 2
266
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
516
involving hazardous materials should require additional public review and discretionary approval, not merely administrative clearance.

5. The project should not be approved without enforceable operating restrictions, including limits on nighttime operations, early morning activity, weekend loading, truck idling, truck staging, backup alarms, trash compactors, and loading dock activity near homes.

6. The project should not be approved without a significantly greater physical buffer from residential properties, stronger sound walls, landscape screening, building design modifications, and relocation or reorientation of loading docks and truck circulation areas away from homes.

7. The City should carefully consider whether approving this project next to residential homes creates land use compatibility problems and potential legal exposure. The revenue or economic benefit from a warehouse project is minor compared with the potential cost of a serious accident, emergency evacuation, public health incident, property damage, or litigation.

8. The Planning Commission should not adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based on generalized economic benefits. The residents living next to this project would bear the long-term risks and impacts, while the alleged public benefits remain speculative and comparatively limited.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission decline to certify the Final EIR and deny the Site Development Permit. At minimum, the Commission should continue the hearing and require the applicant and City staff to prepare a less impactful project design, a greater residential buffer, stricter tenantuse restrictions, and enforceable operating and hazardous-materials conditions.

Please include this comment in the official public record. My family and other affected residents reserve all rights to pursue available administrative appeals and legal remedies if the City approves this project without adequately addressing these serious public safety, environmental, and land use compatibility concerns.

Sincerely,
Qiyuan from the Meadows
------------------------------------------------------------------ From:EnterpriseProjects <[email protected]> Send Time:Thu, May 21, 2026, 15:56
Subject:City of Lake Forest Notice of Public Hearing (IPT Industrial Project- 26200 Enterprise Way)
Good afternoon,
This email is being sent to you because you are on the City’s interest list for Site Development Permit (SDP) 06-21-5437, for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new industrial building located at 26200 Enterprise Way. The Planning Commission will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the SDP 06-21-5437 for the IPT Item: 2
267
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
517
Industrial Project. Attached to this email is the notice of public hearing to be held by the Planning Commission for this project. Please review the attached notice for details.

As noted in the notice of public hearing, the meeting agenda (which will include the agenda report) will be available on the City’s website the Friday before the meeting. Members of the public may submit email comments to [email protected]. Email comments will be uploaded to the agenda packet and made part of the official public record of the meeting but will not be read at the meeting. To ensure staff reviews all comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting, please submit email comments no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

Item: 2
268
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
518
From: Cherie Liu
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: Supplemental Public Comment Opposing Certification of Final EIR and Approval of SDP 06-21-5437 Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:17:41 AM
Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to oppose certification of the Final EIR and approval of Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 for the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project at 26200 Enterprise Way.

This project raises a serious land use compatibility problem. The proposed industrial/warehouse building would be placed immediately next to residential backyards. For nearby families, this is not a distant or theoretical impact. It would change the daily living environment of our homes.

A residential backyard should not become the effective buffer zone for an industrial project. Residents should not be expected to absorb truck noise, loading activity, backup alarms, lighting, diesel exhaust, trash compactor noise, early morning operations, nighttime operations, or future tenant activity simply because the project site is technically adjacent to a light industrial area.

The City should evaluate the project based on the actual conditions on the ground today. There are homes next to this site. There are families, children, and senior residents living nearby. The fact that the property may have an industrial designation does not resolve the basic compatibility issue created by placing a large warehousetype operation so close to residential uses.

I am especially concerned that the project approval appears to leave too much uncertainty for future residents to bear. The public still needs clear, enforceable answers to the following questions:

1. What exact uses will be allowed in the building?

2. Will warehouse, distribution, manufacturing, storage, or logistics operations be broadly permitted?

3. Will future tenants be allowed to operate at night, early in the morning, or on weekends?

4. Will trucks be allowed to stage, idle, load, or unload near residential property lines?

5. Will loading docks, truck circulation, trash compactors, mechanical equipment, and backup alarms be located or oriented away from homes?

6. What specific protections will be enforceable after the project is built and leased to future tenants?
Item: 2
269
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
519

7. Will any future change in tenant or use require public notice and further review? The City should not approve a broad industrial entitlement first and leave the most important operational details to be handled later. Once the building is constructed, nearby residents will have very limited practical ability to protect themselves from incompatible operations.

I also ask the Planning Commission to require meaningful alternatives before approving this project. A less impactful design should be considered, including a smaller building footprint, a much larger residential setback, relocation or elimination of loading activity near homes, restrictions on warehouse and distribution uses, and a preference for lower-impact office, R&D, or truly light industrial uses.

The proposed project may create economic benefits for the applicant, but those benefits do not justify imposing permanent industrial impacts on adjacent residents.

The City should not treat nearby homes as an acceptable sacrifice for warehouse redevelopment.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Planning Commission not to certify the Final EIR and not to approve SDP 06-21-5437 as proposed. At minimum, the hearing should be continued so that the applicant can revise the project and the City can impose stronger, specific, and enforceable protections for adjacent residents.

Please include this comment in the official public record.

Sincerely,
The Ding family
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
270
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
520
From: Kathy Lv
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Protect Our Neighborhood from the Proposed Warehouses Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 9:36:15 PM
[Kathy , Lake Forest, CA [92630] ] · [
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing as a member of a family that lives in this neighborhood, speaking up for the people I love and the home we share. My family chose Lake Forest for the same reasons so many others did: it felt like a place where you could open your windows in the evening, let the children ride their bikes until dark, and trust that the home we built our lives around would still feel like home in ten years. The warehouse projects now under consideration would quietly take all of that away from us.

I want to be honest about what this looks like from inside our home. These buildings would not rise somewhere "near" us — they would rise right against us. The sound of engines and loading docks would become the soundtrack of our mornings. The truck routes would cut through the very streets where our family walks and where our neighbors push strollers. And the clean air we take for granted would carry diesel and dust from operations that never really stop. None of this is the future we imagined when our family put down roots here.

I understand the City has to plan for growth and for business. But growth should make a community stronger, not hollow it out from the inside. There is a difference between development that a family can live alongside and development that is placed directly on top of one. What is being proposed here is the second kind — and the ones who will pay for it are not the developers, but the families, the grandparents, and the children who already call these streets home.

I am asking you, as the people entrusted to protect this community, to stand with the families who actually live here.

Please reject these projects, or send the environmental review back until it honestly reflects what daily life beside these warehouses would truly be like. Once a neighborhood like ours is changed, it cannot be changed back.

Thank you for listening, and for remembering that behind every parcel on the map are real families — mine among them — hoping you will protect the homes we love.

Respectfully,
Kathy Lv
On behalf of my family · Resident of Meadows, Lake Forest CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
271
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
521
From: Kai Chung
To: EnterpriseProjects; Mansur, Jennifer; Planning Commission Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Voigts, Scott; Stonich, Amy; Ackerman, Gayle; Merritt, Thy; Rose, Debra; Erdman, Douglas; Ma, Scott; Slaven, Devin; Richardson, Matthew; Smith, Scott Subject: Comment to IPT Industrial Project / SDP 06-21-5437 — Public Safety Concerns Near Residential Communities Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 3:56:33 PM
Dear Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and City Staff, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed IPT Industrial Project, Site Development Permit (SDP) 06-21-5437, located at 26200 Enterprise Way.

I respectfully urge the City to deny this project.

This is not a project that can be fixed by additional conditions, minor design changes, future tenant review, or more technical language in the EIR. The fundamental problem is the location and the land-use decision itself. A large industrial facility of this scale does not belong this close to residential communities.

According to the project description, the proposal includes demolishing the existing office facility and constructing a new 165,803-square-foot industrial building. South Coast AQMD’s comment letter also describes the project as including warehouse, office, and potential manufacturing uses, with up to 23 dock doors and significant truck activity. Most importantly, South Coast AQMD noted that nearby sensitive receptors, including residences, are located very close to the project boundary.

That should be enough for the City to say no.

This is not a remote industrial park. This is not an isolated warehouse far away from the public. This is a large industrial entitlement near homes, families, children, seniors, and everyday residential activity.

Recent events show that industrial and warehouse risks are not theoretical.

In Ontario, California, a major fire destroyed a large Kimberly-Clark warehouse/distribution facility. Reports described the fire as starting around 12:30 a.m. and quickly burning through paper-based products inside the warehouse, despite a major emergency response. KimberlyClark confirmed there were no reported injuries and that employees were evacuated, but the event still showed how quickly a large warehouse can become a major fire-suppression emergency.

In Garden Grove, California, an overheated chemical tank at the GKN Aerospace facility involving methyl methacrylate triggered a major emergency response and evacuation concerns. The Los Angeles Times reported that officials were dealing with the threat of a massive explosion before later saying that threat had been eliminated, while danger remained.

In Longview, Washington, a tank rupture at the Nippon Dynawave Packaging facility caused deaths, injuries, missing workers, chemical exposure concerns, and environmental impacts.

Reports stated that the incident involved white liquor, a caustic chemical used in paper production, and that workers and a firefighter were injured.

Item: 2
272
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
522
I understand that the IPT Industrial Project is not identical to Ontario, Garden Grove, or Longview. But that is exactly the point. Industrial risk does not come in only one form. It can come from warehouse fire load, truck activity, industrial equipment, future tenant operations, chemicals, batteries, manufacturing processes, maintenance failures, human error, security failures, or emergency response limits.

The public does not yet know the future operator. The public does not know the exact tenant.

The public does not know the full range of materials, equipment, operating practices, safety history, or future business model. But the City is being asked to approve the land-use entitlement now.

That is unacceptable.

Once the entitlement is granted, the leverage shifts away from residents and toward the industrial operator. The City should not approve the project now and ask residents to trust that future tenants, future permits, future inspections, or future enforcement will solve the risk later.

A fire plan does not eliminate warehouse fire risk.

A truck routing plan does not eliminate truck impacts.

An emergency response plan does not prevent an emergency from happening.

Future tenant review does not undo the decision to place industrial risk next to homes.

The issue is not whether the applicant can make the project look cleaner, quieter, or more controlled on paper. The issue is whether Lake Forest should approve a large industrial entitlement next to residential communities at all.

My position is clear: it should not.

Children are especially important in this decision. Children do not get to vote, hire consultants, challenge an EIR, or evaluate technical assumptions. They rely on the adults in this room to decide whether their homes, play areas, walking routes, and air quality should be placed next to a large industrial risk they cannot control.

Families should not be forced to wonder whether an industrial facility near their home could one day become the next warehouse fire, evacuation order, hazmat response, or late-night emergency.

First responders should also not be asked to carry the burden of a preventable land-use mistake. When industrial safeguards fail, firefighters, hazmat teams, police officers, and emergency personnel are the people sent into danger. The recent incidents in Ontario, Garden Grove, and Longview show that these are not minor nuisance issues. They can become regional emergencies, evacuation-level incidents, and fatality-level events.

Lake Forest should not turn a residential neighborhood into the emergency buffer zone for a private industrial project.

This is not anti-business. This is not anti-development. This is a basic public safety and landuse compatibility issue. Some projects are simply in the wrong location. This is one of them.

The applicant should not be given a path to approval through cosmetic changes, deferred Item: 2
273
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
523
conditions, or promises of future review. The core land-use conflict cannot be mitigated away.

A large industrial project of this scale should not be placed this close to homes.

If this project is approved and a serious fire, chemical release, explosion, evacuation, or other industrial incident occurs in the future, the public record will show that residents warned the City before the vote. The City will not be able to say the risks were unforeseeable. Recent industrial disasters are already in the news, and decision-makers have the opportunity now to choose public safety over industrial intensification next to homes.

This vote will follow every decision-maker who supports it. Even if an elected official leaves office or a commissioner’s term ends, the approval record will remain. If something goes wrong later, the public will not remember the technical mitigation language. They will remember that residents asked the City not to place this industrial risk next to homes, and the City approved it anyway.

No elected official or appointed commissioner should want their public legacy tied to that decision.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to deny the IPT Industrial Project.

Not continue it.

Not condition it.

Not redesign it.

Not approve it with promises of future review.

Deny it.

Residents are asking the City to make the safe decision before something happens, not explain the decision after something happens.

Please deny the project.

Sincerely,
Kai Zhong
Resident at the Meadows in city of Lake Forest
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
274
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
524
From: Kai Chung
To: Planning Commission; EnterpriseProjects
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Voigts, Scott; Stonich, Amy; Mansur, Jennifer; Ackerman, Gayle; Merritt, Thy; Rose, Debra; Erdman, Douglas; Ma, Scott; Slaven, Devin Subject: Opposition to IPT Industrial Project / SDP 06-21-5437 — Final EIR Fails to Substantively Address California Attorney General’s Warehouse Comment Letter
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:43:30 AM
Attachments: California Attorney General Letter to City of Lake Forest on Warehouse Project by IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC - Rob Bonta 05April2024.pdf
Dear Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and City Staff, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the IPT Industrial Project, Site Development Permit SDP 06-21- 5437, located at 26200 Enterprise Way.

I respectfully urge the City not to certify the Final EIR and not to approve this project.

This objection is focused on a serious problem in the environmental review record: the Final EIR does not appear to substantively address the April 5, 2024 comment letter submitted by the California Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of Environmental Justice, regarding the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC project, SCH #2024030755.

I have attached the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter for the record.

The Attorney General’s letter was not a routine public comment. It was a formal warning from the California Department of Justice regarding warehouse projects and their environmental impacts. The letter specifically warned that warehouses can bring significant environmental impacts to nearby communities, including diesel truck emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions, diesel particulate matter, noise from trucks and on-site loading activities, traffic congestion, deterioration of road surfaces, traffic accidents, and unsafe conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Most importantly, the Attorney General’s letter stated that priority should be placed on avoiding land use conflicts between warehouses and sensitive receptors, and on mitigating the impacts of any unavoidable land use conflicts.

That warning goes directly to the heart of this project.

The IPT project is not located in an isolated industrial area far away from the public. It is located near residential communities, including homes, families, children, seniors, and daily residential activity. This is exactly the type of land-use conflict the Attorney General warned the City about.

The City cannot simply place the Attorney General’s letter in a scoping appendix and treat the issue as resolved. A scoping appendix is not a substitute for a reasoned analysis in the Final EIR. The Final EIR should clearly identify the Attorney General’s warehouse-specific concerns, analyze them, explain whether the DOJ Warehouse Best Practices were incorporated, and provide substantial evidence for any recommendations that were rejected or omitted.

The public should not have to guess where this analysis is.

If the City believes the Final EIR adequately addresses the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter, then City staff should identify the specific page numbers in the Final EIR where the City:

1. Substantively responds to the Attorney General’s warning regarding warehouse impacts;

2. Analyzes the conflict between the proposed warehouse / manufacturing entitlement and nearby sensitive residential receptors;

3. Explains which DOJ Warehouse Best Practices were adopted;

4. Explains which DOJ Warehouse Best Practices were rejected or omitted; Item: 2
275
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
525

5. Provides substantial evidence supporting the City’s decision to reject or omit those measures;

6. Explains why a large warehouse / manufacturing project near residential communities is an acceptable land-use decision.

Without that analysis, the Final EIR is not adequate.

This is not a minor technical issue. It is a fundamental CEQA, public safety, and land-use compatibility issue. The Attorney General specifically raised warehouse-related environmental justice, air quality, noise, traffic safety, and sensitive receptor concerns. The City should not certify the Final EIR while leaving these concerns substantively unresolved.

The City has been warned by the California Attorney General.

The City has been warned by residents.

If the City certifies the Final EIR and approves this project without meaningfully addressing these warnings, the record will show that the City chose to move forward despite clear project-specific concerns from public agencies and the community.

This project should not be continued, conditioned, redesigned, or approved with promises of future tenant review.

The fundamental problem is the land-use conflict itself. A large warehouse / manufacturing entitlement does not belong this close to homes.

The City should not turn a residential neighborhood into the buffer zone for private industrial risk.

This is not anti-business. This is not anti-development. This is a basic public safety and responsible land-use issue.

Once this entitlement is granted, the leverage shifts away from residents and toward the industrial operator. The City should not approve the project now and ask residents to trust that future tenants, future permits, future inspections, or future enforcement will solve the risk later.

A future tenant review does not undo the decision to approve the industrial entitlement.

A fire plan does not eliminate warehouse fire risk.

A truck routing plan does not eliminate truck impacts.

An emergency response plan does not prevent an emergency from happening.

The core land-use conflict cannot be mitigated away.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and City Council:

1. Decline to certify the Final EIR;

2. Reject the conclusion that the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter has been adequately addressed;

3. Deny SDP 06-21-5437;

4. Place this email and the attached Attorney General letter into the administrative record for the project.

Please deny the IPT Industrial Project.

Sincerely,
Kai Zhong
Resident of Lake Forest
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do Item: 2
276
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
526
not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 2
277
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
527
ROB BONTA State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I STREET, SUITE 125
P.O. BOX 944255
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550
E-Mail: [email protected]
April 5, 2024
Amy Stonich, Assistant Director of Community Development City of Lake Forest
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
RE: IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC, SCH #2024030755 Dear Ms. Stonich:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation for the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC project. While the logistics industry is an important component of our modern economy, warehouses can bring various environmental impacts to the communities where they are located. For example, diesel trucks visiting warehouses emit nitrogen oxide (NOx)—a primary precursor to smog formation and a significant factor in the development of respiratory problems like asthma, bronchitis, and lung irritation—and diesel particulate matter (a subset of fine particular matter that is smaller than 2.5 micrometers)—a contributor to cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and premature death.1 Trucks and onsite loading activities can also be loud, bringing disruptive noise levels during 24/7 operation that can cause hearing damage after prolonged exposure.2
The hundreds, and sometimes thousands,
of daily truck and passenger car trips that warehouses generate can contribute to traffic jams, deterioration of road surfaces, traffic accidents, and unsafe conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. Depending on the circumstances of an individual project, warehouses may also have other environmental impacts.

To help lead agencies avoid, analyze, and mitigate warehouses’ environmental impacts, the Attorney General Office’s Bureau of Environmental Justice has published a document containing best practices and mitigation measures for warehouse projects. We have attached a 1 California Air Resources Board, Nitrogen Dioxide & Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen-dioxide-and-health (NOx); California Air Resources Board, Summary: Diesel Particular Matter Health Impacts, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-health-impacts; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust,
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf (DPM). 2 Noise Sources and Their Effects,
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm (a diesel truck moving 40 miles per hour, 50 feet away, produces 84 decibels of sound).

Item: 2
278
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
528
April 5, 2024

Page 2 ends

copy of this document to this letter, and it is also available online. 3 We encourage you to
consider the information in this document as you prepare the draft environmental impact report for this project.

Priority should be placed on avoiding land use conflicts between warehouses and sensitive receptors and on mitigating the impacts of any unavoidable land use conflicts.

However, even projects located far from sensitive receptors may contribute to harmful regional air pollution, so you should consider measures to reduce emissions associated with the project to help the State meet its air quality goals. A distant warehouse may also impact sensitive receptors if trucks must pass near sensitive receptors to visit the warehouse.

The Bureau will continue to monitor proposed warehouse projects for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and other laws. We are available to discuss as you prepare the draft environmental impact report and consider how to guide warehouse development in your jurisdiction. Please do not hesitate to contact the Environmental Justice Bureau at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

CHRISTIE VOSBURG
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
3 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf.

Item: 2
279
PC Agenda Report (June 4, 2026)
Item: 9
529
Attachment 4
Item: 9
530
From: Kai Chung
To: EnterpriseProjects; Mansur, Jennifer; Planning Commission Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Voigts, Scott; Stonich, Amy; Ackerman, Gayle; Merritt, Thy; Rose, Debra; Erdman, Douglas; Ma, Scott; Slaven, Devin; Richardson, Matthew; Smith, Scott Subject: Comment to IPT Industrial Project / SDP 06-21-5437 — Public Safety Concerns Near Residential Communities Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 3:56:33 PM
Dear Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and City Staff, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed IPT Industrial Project, Site Development Permit (SDP) 06-21-5437, located at 26200 Enterprise Way.

I respectfully urge the City to deny this project.

That should be enough for the City to say no.

Recent events show that industrial and warehouse risks are not theoretical.

In Longview, Washington, a tank rupture at the Nippon Dynawave Packaging facility caused deaths, injuries, missing workers, chemical exposure concerns, and environmental impacts.

Reports stated that the incident involved white liquor, a caustic chemical used in paper production, and that workers and a firefighter were injured.

Item: 9
531
I understand that the IPT Industrial Project is not identical to Ontario, Garden Grove, or Longview. But that is exactly the point. Industrial risk does not come in only one form. It can come from warehouse fire load, truck activity, industrial equipment, future tenant operations, chemicals, batteries, manufacturing processes, maintenance failures, human error, security failures, or emergency response limits.

The public does not yet know the future operator. The public does not know the exact tenant.

The public does not know the full range of materials, equipment, operating practices, safety history, or future business model. But the City is being asked to approve the land-use entitlement now.

That is unacceptable.

A fire plan does not eliminate warehouse fire risk.

A truck routing plan does not eliminate truck impacts.

An emergency response plan does not prevent an emergency from happening.

Future tenant review does not undo the decision to place industrial risk next to homes.

My position is clear: it should not.

Families should not be forced to wonder whether an industrial facility near their home could one day become the next warehouse fire, evacuation order, hazmat response, or late-night emergency.

Lake Forest should not turn a residential neighborhood into the emergency buffer zone for a private industrial project.

This is not anti-business. This is not anti-development. This is a basic public safety and landuse compatibility issue. Some projects are simply in the wrong location. This is one of them.

The applicant should not be given a path to approval through cosmetic changes, deferred Item: 9
532
conditions, or promises of future review. The core land-use conflict cannot be mitigated away.

A large industrial project of this scale should not be placed this close to homes.

No elected official or appointed commissioner should want their public legacy tied to that decision.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to deny the IPT Industrial Project.

Not continue it.

Not condition it.

Not redesign it.

Not approve it with promises of future review.

Deny it.

Residents are asking the City to make the safe decision before something happens, not explain the decision after something happens.

Please deny the project.

Item: 9
533
From: Kai Chung
To: Planning Commission; EnterpriseProjects
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Voigts, Scott; Stonich, Amy; Mansur, Jennifer; Ackerman, Gayle; Merritt, Thy; Rose, Debra; Erdman, Douglas; Ma, Scott; Slaven, Devin Subject: Opposition to IPT Industrial Project / SDP 06-21-5437 — Final EIR Fails to Substantively Address California Attorney General’s Warehouse Comment Letter
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:43:30 AM
Attachments: California Attorney General Letter to City of Lake Forest on Warehouse Project by IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC - Rob Bonta 05April2024.pdf
Dear Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and City Staff, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the IPT Industrial Project, Site Development Permit SDP 06-21- 5437, located at 26200 Enterprise Way.

I respectfully urge the City not to certify the Final EIR and not to approve this project.

I have attached the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter for the record.

That warning goes directly to the heart of this project.

The public should not have to guess where this analysis is.

If the City believes the Final EIR adequately addresses the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter, then City staff should identify the specific page numbers in the Final EIR where the City:

1. Substantively responds to the Attorney General’s warning regarding warehouse impacts;

2. Analyzes the conflict between the proposed warehouse / manufacturing entitlement and nearby sensitive residential receptors;

3. Explains which DOJ Warehouse Best Practices were adopted;

4. Explains which DOJ Warehouse Best Practices were rejected or omitted; Item: 9
534

5. Provides substantial evidence supporting the City’s decision to reject or omit those measures;

6. Explains why a large warehouse / manufacturing project near residential communities is an acceptable land-use decision.

Without that analysis, the Final EIR is not adequate.

The City has been warned by the California Attorney General.

The City has been warned by residents.

This project should not be continued, conditioned, redesigned, or approved with promises of future tenant review.

The fundamental problem is the land-use conflict itself. A large warehouse / manufacturing entitlement does not belong this close to homes.

The City should not turn a residential neighborhood into the buffer zone for private industrial risk.

This is not anti-business. This is not anti-development. This is a basic public safety and responsible land-use issue.

A future tenant review does not undo the decision to approve the industrial entitlement.

A fire plan does not eliminate warehouse fire risk.

A truck routing plan does not eliminate truck impacts.

An emergency response plan does not prevent an emergency from happening.

The core land-use conflict cannot be mitigated away.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and City Council:

1. Decline to certify the Final EIR;

2. Reject the conclusion that the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter has been adequately addressed;

3. Deny SDP 06-21-5437;

4. Place this email and the attached Attorney General letter into the administrative record for the project.

Please deny the IPT Industrial Project.

Sincerely,
Kai Zhong
Resident of Lake Forest
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do Item: 9
535
not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
536
ROB BONTA State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I STREET, SUITE 125
P.O. BOX 944255
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550
E-Mail: [email protected]
April 5, 2024
Amy Stonich, Assistant Director of Community Development City of Lake Forest
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
RE: IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC, SCH #2024030755 Dear Ms. Stonich:

Item: 9
537
April 5, 2024

Page 2 ends

Priority should be placed on avoiding land use conflicts between warehouses and sensitive receptors and on mitigating the impacts of any unavoidable land use conflicts.

Sincerely,

CHRISTIE VOSBURG
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
3 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf.

Item: 9
538
From: Min Lu
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Objection to the Proposed Factory Construction in Lake Forest The Meadows Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:47:09 PM
Dear Planning Committee,
I am writing to formally express my strong objection to the proposed construction of the factory in our residential area - Lake Forest Meadows. As a resident of Meadows for two years, I am deeply concerned about the negative impacts this project will have on our community.

A residential area is meant to be a safe, quiet, and healthy environment for families and children. Constructing a factory here raises several serious concerns:

Environmental & Health Risks: Potential air, water, or soil pollution could pose long-term health risks to the residents, especially children and the elderly.

Noise and Traffic: The operation of heavy machinery and the influx of industrial trucks will significantly increase noise pollution and traffic congestion, compromising road safety.

I urge the committee to reconsider this proposal and protect our neighborhood. I look forward to your response and a public hearing on this matter.

Best,
Min
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
539
From: Donghai Xu
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: [Public Comment] Strong Opposition to the Enterprise Way Industrial Project Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 12:04:53 PM
Dear Planning Commission Chair and Members,
I am writing to you as a resident and homeowner to voice my strong opposition to the proposed IPT Enterprise Business Center project ahead of the upcoming hearing on June 4. I live in one of the master-planned communities adjacent to the site, and the idea of putting a massive 165,000-square-foot industrial facility right against our neighborhood property lines is a complete failure of city planning.

The Final EIR leaves way too many massive safety gaps unaddressed, and I urge the Commission to deny this project.

First of all, the city is asking us to trust that this facility will be completely harmless, yet the EIR openly admits that the actual tenant is completely unknown. It is a total loophole. How can the city certify an environmental report as "safe" when you have absolutely no idea who is going to be operating inside that building? Under the current zoning, an unknown tenant could legally bring in high-risk manufacturing, plastic blending, or major lithium-ion battery storage right next to our backyards and parks. Because there is no specific tenant, the city should have analyzed the absolute worst-case, most dangerous possibilities allowed by the zoning, but the EIR completely glosses over this.

We don't have to look far to see how dangerous this is. Just last weekend on May 22, the massive chemical leak and toxic vapor emergency down the road in Garden Grove forced the evacuation of thousands of people and affected six cities. That disaster happened at a plastics and manufacturing plant—the exact type of use this zoning allows. If a chemical fire or toxic leak happens at this Enterprise site, the wind will push that plume straight into the Meadows and surrounding neighborhoods in seconds. Yet, the EIR includes zero evacuation routing or safety protocols for the thousands of families living less than a hundred feet away.

Furthermore, the Health Risk Assessment downplays the real impact of the 117+ daily truck trips on our kids' and senior citizens' health. The traffic modifications on Bake Parkway are a joke and won't handle heavy freight trucks mixing with daily school and work commuters.

Please be advised that if the Planning Commission pushes this project through without a specific tenant, without strict deed restrictions against hazardous uses, and without proper residential buffers, the community is fully prepared to take this to court.

The city needs to protect its residents and the families who live here, not fast-track a dangerous industrial center for a developer.

Lake Forest residents and taxpayers urge you to vote NO on the IPT Enterprise Business Center project.

Sincerely,
Donghai Xu
Item: 9
540
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
541
From: Chao Huang
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: Public Comment in Strong Opposition to the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 11:45:47 AM
Dear Chair and Members of the Lake Forest Planning Commission, I am submitting this formal public comment for the June 4, 2026, hearing to express my strenuous opposition to the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project.

As a resident of the adjacent Meadows community, I am appalled that the City is considering a project of this intensity—specifically one that includes up to 105,000 square feet of manufacturing space—less than 100 feet from our backyards. The Final EIR fails to resolve critical safety and health risks, leaving our families at the mercy of an "undetermined" future tenant.

We demand the Commission deny this project based on the following unaddressed failures in the EIR:

1. The "Unknown Tenant" Loophole
The EIR repeatedly claims that operational impacts will be "less than significant," yet it explicitly states that the future tenant remains undetermined. Certifying an EIR under these conditions is a "blind approval." Without a specific tenant, the City cannot accurately model the volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hazardous waste streams, or specific chemical risks that manufacturing at this scale entails.

2. Failure to Address "Worst-Case" Manufacturing Hazards Under current Light Industrial zoning, this facility could legally house high-intensity plastic fabrication or chemical processing. The EIR fails to account for the most dangerous uses allowed by right.

Recent Precedent: Only last week (May 2026), a chemical leak at an aerospace plant in nearby Garden Grove forced the evacuation of over 50,000 people due to an overheated tank of methyl methacrylate.

Residential Proximity: While that disaster occurred in an industrial area, the IPT project is located less than 100 feet from sensitive receptors (homes). A similar valve failure or cooling system malfunction at 26200 Enterprise Way would not just be an industrial accident; it would be a residential catastrophe.

3. Insufficient Health Risk Assessment (HRA) and Idling The EIR’s Health Risk Assessment relies on a default assumption of 15 minutes of truck idling. As noted by the South Coast AQMD in their review of this project, this is woefully inadequate. Heavy-duty trucks in logistics hubs frequently experience Item: 9
542
extended idling during queuing and security checks. Given the proximity to The Meadows, even a slight underestimation of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) creates an unmitigated health risk for the residents, including vulnerable groups of thousands of young kids and senior citizens.

4. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
The project proposes off-site "improvements" at intersections like Bake Parkway and Dimension Drive. These measures are insufficient to handle the 117+ daily heavy truck trips this project will generate. Forcing multi-axle freight trucks into a corridor used by families, school buses, and local residents is a fundamental "land use incompatibility" that the EIR fails to resolve.

The residents of Lake Forest will not accept a "wait and see" approach to our safety.

If the Planning Commission certifies this EIR without a Supplemental EIR that identifies the tenant, restricts hazardous manufacturing uses, and provides a 500-foot health buffer (as recommended by the California Air Resources Board for sensitive sites), we are prepared to pursue immediate legal action.

This includes litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and seeking a court-ordered injunction to prevent any further site development. We urge you to prioritize the lives of Lake Forest citizens over the profits of industrial developers.

Please vote NO on the IPT Enterprise Business Center project.

Sincerely,
Chao Huang
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
543
From: Qiyuan Liu
To: EnterpriseProjects; Mansur, Jennifer; Planning Commission Subject: Request for Appeal Procedure Information – SDP 06-21-5437 / IPT Enterprise Business Center Project Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 9:06:51 AM
Dear Ms. Mansur and City Clerk,
I am writing regarding the upcoming Planning Commission hearing for the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project / SDP 06-21-5437.

If the Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR and/or approves the Site Development Permit, I would like to understand the appeal process in advance.

Could the City please confirm the following in writing:

1. What is the deadline to file an appeal after the Planning Commission decision?

2. Does the appeal period begin on the date of the Planning Commission decision, the date of the Notice of Decision, or another date?

3. What is the exact deadline date and time by which an appeal must be filed?

4. Who is eligible to file an appeal?

5. What form or written submission is required?

6. What is the filing fee?

7. Where and how must the appeal be submitted?

8. Can an appeal challenge both the Site Development Permit approval and the certification of the Final EIR / CEQA findings?

9. What specific grounds must be stated in the appeal?

10. If an appeal is filed, would the matter be heard by the City Council, and approximately when would that hearing occur?
Please also let me know whether there are any additional procedural requirements that nearby residents should be aware of in order to preserve their rights.

I would appreciate a written response before the Planning Commission hearing.

Thank you
On May 21, 2026, at 15:56, EnterpriseProjects
<[email protected]> wrote:

Item: 9
544
Good afternoon,
This email is being sent to you because you are on the City’s interest list for Site Development Permit (SDP) 06-21-5437, for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new industrial building located at 26200 Enterprise Way. The Planning Commission will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the SDP 06-21-5437 for the IPT Industrial Project. Attached to this email is the notice of public hearing to be held by the Planning Commission for this project. Please review the attached notice for details.

For additional information about this project, please contact Jennifer Mansur, Senior Planner, at (949) 461-3472 or via e-mail at [email protected]
<image001.png>
<SDP 06-21-5437 Notice of Public Hearing.pdf>
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
545
From: Cherie Liu
To: Stonich, Amy; Mansur, Jennifer; Planning Commission Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Rose, Debra; Yu, Benjamin Subject: Re: Request for Clarification Regarding Attorney General Correspondence and Final EIR Response Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 11:19:36 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Amy,
Thank you for your detailed response.

I understand the City’s position that the project would be subject to existing hazardous materials regulations, HMBP/RMP requirements, CUPA review, CalARP, Fire Code requirements, and other federal, State, and local regulatory programs.

However, my concern remains that future regulatory compliance and emergency response procedures are not the same as determining now whether this broad industrial/warehouse/manufacturing entitlement is appropriate immediately next to residential homes. They are damage controls, not mitigations.

Regulatory programs may address hazardous materials after a tenant is identified, and emergency response programs may address incidents after they occur. But those programs do not eliminate the land use compatibility issue created by approving an unknown future industrial tenant next to homes, families, children, and seniors.

Residents are not arguing that an accident is certain to occur. The concern is that the risk is reasonably foreseeable given the project’s proposed industrial/warehouse/manufacturing uses, unknown future tenant, potential hazardous materials storage or use, truck activity, diesel emissions, and close proximity to sensitive receptors.

If the City believes hazardous materials warehousing, high-impact industrial uses, or other higher-risk tenant operations will not occur, those restrictions should be written clearly into the Conditions of Approval. If such uses may occur, then nearby residents should have public notice, discretionary review, and additional environmental analysis before any such tenant is allowed to operate.

For that reason, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission not certify the Final EIR or approve the Site Development Permit unless the project includes clear and enforceable conditions addressing future tenant uses, hazardous materials, truck operations, idling, loading activity, hours of operation, and additional public review for higher-risk uses.

Please include this email in the official public record and administrative record for the project.

Thank you,
Item: 9
546
Cherie
From: Stonich, Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 10:02
To: Cherie Liu >; Mansur, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Pequeno, Robert <[email protected]>; Cirbo, Doug <[email protected]>; Tettemer, Mark <[email protected]>; Rose, Debra <[email protected]>; Yu, Benjamin <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Request for Clarification Regarding Attorney General Correspondence and Final EIR Response
Cherie,
The EIR addresses the Attorney General’s recommendations directly as previously noted, and the analysis specifically considers the project’s proximity to sensitive uses.

The project incorporates project features, and a range of mitigation measures and conditions have been incorporated to address compatibility issues.

In addition, please see language below from the FEIR addressing your questions and comments.

In response to your questions/comments regarding Attorney General Warehouse Best Practices:

The Warehouse Project: Best Practices explicitly states Lead Agencies are not relieved from conducting project[1]specific analysis of impacts and evaluation of feasible mitigation. Therefore, the Draft EIR relied on detailed technical evaluation to support determinations of project impacts and the development of appropriate mitigation for impacts that exceeded established thresholds (see below). The Project satisfies a number of suggested best practices for warehouse siting, including provision of a landscape buffer between existing residences and the project site, orientating the building so that loading areas face away from residential areas, and providing truck movement features sufficient to prevent queuing on local streets, and provision of a screening wall along the eastern end of the loading docks. Additionally, as suggested by the Warehouse Projects: Best Practices, the Project prepared project-specific and cumulative analyses of air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk assessments impacts utilizing anticipated truck volumes and movements. (FEIR, p.

74.)
The Warehouse Projects: Best Practices are suggestions and recommendations for Item: 9
547
warehouse development and would not result in a greater reduction of the proposed Project’s identified impacts than that already achieved through the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR along with the project design features achieved through LEEDs certification, compliance with appropriate provisions of the CALGreen and Energy Codes, and compliance with existing SCAQMD policies (e.g., Rules 403 and 2305), collectively satisfy the intent of Warehouse Project: Best Practices, relative to the air quality, greenhouse gas, health risk, and noise conditions associated with proposed Project. (FEIR, p. 389.)
In response to your questions/comments regarding hazardous materials:

The demolition and construction phase of the proposed project would require the short-term transport, use, and/or disposal of petroleum-based fuels, lubricants, pesticides, and other similar materials required for construction and may pose a potential hazard to construction workers. Any ACMs or other regulated materials encountered during demolition would be managed in accordance with EPA, OSHA, and State requirements. To ensure that potential hazardous materials during construction would not affect water quality, management of hazardous materials during construction activities would be subject to the requirements of the Stormwater Construction General Permit (CGP), which requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which includes hazardous materials storage requirements (refer to Section 4.10, page 4.10-30 of the Draft EIR). Although the future tenant for the proposed project is unknown, because of the project’s industrial land use designation and proposed manufacturing and warehouse uses, for the purposes of the environmental analysis, it was conservatively assumed that the proposed project would involve storage and/or use of hazardous materials. As detailed in Section 4.9 (refer to pages 4.9-10 through 4.9-12 of the Draft EIR), future activities at the project site, including both construction and operation, would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulatory program for hazardous materials including compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) hazardous materials regulations; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and applicable CalEPA, Cal/OSHA, and Orange County Health Care Agency Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) requirements. Additionally, any business that handles hazardous materials in the State is required to prepare and maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP must be submitted to the local CUPA and the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS).

Information required in a HMBP includes an inventory of hazardous materials, emergency response procedures, and employee training programs. Facilities handling larger quantities of regulated substances would also be required to prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) under the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Item: 9
548
program. These programs would ensure that appropriate emergency response, storage, and safety measures are in place prior to project occupancy. (FEIR, p. 54.) As detailed under Threshold 4.9.6 (refer to page 4.9-15 of the Draft EIR), the proposed project would require temporary lane closures during construction and would be required to comply with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), which would ensure that any temporary lane closures that may result from the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access at the project site or in the project vicinity. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity. The existing building is vacant with no vehicle traffic generated from the site. As shown in Table C of the project TIA, (Draft EIR, Appendix J), the proposed project is estimated to generate 269 daily truck trips, including 35 a.m. peak-hour and 36 p.m. peak-hour trips. operation, the proposed project would increase the number of trucks operating near the site and would generate an increase in the amount and volume of traffic on local and regional roadway networks. However, in accordance with the California Fire Code, the project applicant is required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to maintain appropriate emergency/evacuation access to and from the project site. (FEIR, pp. 54-

55.)
Occurrence of a cumulative effect related to hazards and hazardous materials would require that multiple projects release hazardous materials at the same time within in the same concentrated vicinity. Out of the 13 cumulative projects listed in Table 4.A in Chapter 4.0, page 4-5 of the Draft EIR, three are located adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. In addition to the requirements noted above for the proposed project, development within the cumulative study area would also be required to comply with existing hazardous materials regulations including the USEPA, USDOT, RCRA, OSHA, Cal/OSHA, the California Fire Code, California Health and Safety Code, CCR, and Caltrans, and other federal, State and local regulations, to reduce potential impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or release of hazardous materials into the environment, including hazardous emissions near schools. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, including hazardous emissions near schools. In addition, implementation of the City’s General Plan policies and programs would ensure that the City maintains an effective emergency response program that accounts for development of the project and cumulative projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable impact related to emergency response or evacuation plans within the City. Compliance with these existing regulations and Item: 9
549
programs would prevent reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving hazardous materials during both construction and operation. Therefore, the Draft EIR adequately addresses hazardous materials storage, emergency response, and potential upset scenarios. (FEIR, p. 55.)
The Environmental Health Division of the Orange County Health Care Agency is designated as the Certified Uniform Program Agency (CUPA) for the City. California Health and Safety Code requires a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) be submitted to the CUPA if hazardous materials are used on-site. HMBPs must include facility information, a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement, an Emergency Response Plan, and an Emergency Response Training Plan. Facilities handling larger quantities of regulated substances would also be required to prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) under the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program. These plans and programs would ensure that appropriate emergency response, storage, and safety measures are in place prior to Project occupancy. While the commenter speculates on potential future cumulative hazardous materials impacts, the use and/or transport of such materials is no guarantee that an accidental release would occur. It is reasonable to assume that each project (the proposed Project and the referenced cumulative projects) would prepare HMBPs specific to their specific use, as these are required as matter of regulatory compliance. As stated in Section 4.9.7, Cumulative Impacts, starting on page 4.9-16 of the Draft EIR, the Project and the referenced cumulative projects would be required to comply with existing government regulations regarding the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Adherence to existing regulations would adequately identify and address the cumulative effect of transport, storage, or use of hazardous materials in the Project area. (FEIR, p. 121.)
The Environmental Health Division of the Orange County Health Care Agency is designated as the Certified Unified Protection Agency (CUPA) for the City of Lake Forest, and coordinates the regulation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes in the City of Lake Forest. Businesses that store or use hazardous materials in the city limits of Lake Forest are required to submit chemical and facility information on the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), which is a Statewide web‐based system to support CUPAs in electronically collecting and reporting various hazardous materials‐related data as mandated by the California Health and Safety Code and 2008 legislation (AB 2286). Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code requires a HMBP be submitted to the local CUPA if on‐site hazardous materials exceed in aggregate any of the following: 55 gallons for liquids; 500 pounds for solids; or 200 cubic feet of gases at standard temperature and pressure. HMBPs are required to be submitted electronically to the CERS and must include facility Item: 9
550
information, a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement, an Emergency Response Plan, and an Emergency Response Training Plan. The HMBP must be re‐certified for completeness and accuracy every year, or updated and revised, as necessary.

Therefore, once a tenant for the proposed building has been identified, proposed operations would be evaluated to determine whether preparation of a HMBP is required. Therefore, the commenter’s recommendation to prepare a HMBP is consistent with regulatory requirements, and a HMBP would be required for the proposed Project in the event that the proposed Project meets the criteria for preparation of this plan. Further, the proposed Project would be subject to the CalARP program, which aims to reduce the likelihood and impact of accidental releases of regulated toxic and flammable substances, such as the fuels mentioned in this comment. CalARP conducts facility evaluations, develops administrative and operational procedures, prepares emergency preparedness programs, and establishes facility design requirements. Facilities regulated under the CalARP Program must file a written Risk Management Plan (RMP) with the Environmental Health Division of the Orange County Health Care Agency. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) further states, “…CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors”.

The proposed Project’s compliance with requirements for HMBPs and RMPs for handling significant quantities of hazardous materials, OSHA and Cal/OSHA regulations, CCR Title 8; the CGP; and USDOT, RCRA, and State regulations, would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from potential spills of hazardous materials associated with the proposed Project. Therefore, the analysis of hazards and hazardous materials presented in the Draft EIR provides an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of potential hazardous materials impacts. (FEIR, p. 864.)
Your comments, including those outlined in your recent correspondence, will be added to the official record. Thank you for your input.

From: Cherie Liu
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:57 PM
To: Stonich, Amy <[email protected]>; Mansur, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Pequeno, Robert <[email protected]>; Cirbo, Doug <[email protected]>; Tettemer, Mark <[email protected]>; Rose, Debra <[email protected]>; Yu, Benjamin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Request for Clarification Regarding Attorney General Correspondence and Final EIR Response
Dear Amy,
Item: 9
551
Thank you for your response and for identifying the portions of the Final EIR that the City believes address the issues raised in the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter.

After reviewing the cited responses, I understand the City’s position to be that the Attorney General’s concerns were addressed through broader responses, including Comment O-6-8, Master Response 11 Item E, Master Response 8, Master Response 9, and Comment S-2-7.

However, I remain concerned that the Final EIR does not appear to provide a direct, itemized response to the Attorney General’s warehouse best practices and mitigation recommendations. The cited responses generally state that the project analysis and existing mitigation measures are sufficient, but they do not clearly identify which Attorney General warehouse best practices were adopted, which were rejected, and which will be made enforceable as project conditions.

Could the City please clarify the following before the Planning Commission hearing:

1. Which specific Attorney General warehouse best practices were incorporated into the project design, mitigation measures, or conditions of approval?

2. Which Attorney General warehouse best practices were not incorporated, and what is the City’s basis for rejecting them?

3. Will any of the Attorney General’s recommendations be included as enforceable conditions of approval, rather than merely discussed as general guidance?

4. Will the project approval include enforceable restrictions on truck idling, truck staging, truck routes, loading dock operations, nighttime or early morning operations, diesel truck activity, and future tenant operations near residential homes?

5. Will the project approval include enforceable restrictions or additional public review requirements for future tenants involving hazardous materials storage, handling, distribution, or manufacturing?

6. Will Planning Commissioners receive the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter and the City’s explanation of how that letter was addressed before they vote on certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Site Development Permit? The Attorney General’s letter specifically emphasized the need to avoid land use conflicts between warehouses and sensitive receptors and to mitigate warehouse-related diesel emissions, truck traffic, noise, and public health impacts. Because this project would place industrial/warehouse operations immediately adjacent to residential homes, these concerns are directly relevant to the Planning Commission’s decision.

Item: 9
552
I respectfully request that this email and the City’s response be included in the official public record and administrative record for the project.

Thank you,
Cherie
From: Stonich, Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 14:54
To: Cherie Liu < ; Mansur, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Pequeno, Robert <[email protected]>; Cirbo, Doug <[email protected]>; Tettemer, Mark <[email protected]>; Rose, Debra <[email protected]>; Yu, Benjamin <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Request for Clarification Regarding Attorney General Correspondence and Final EIR Response
Cherie –
The April 5th letter from the AG was received during the scoping period and therefore, is included in the Scoping Summary Report (see page 5, last row of the table). The Scoping Summary Report (which includes a copy of all scoping comment letters received) was provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

The FEIR addresses the topics raised in the AG letter in the following responses:
• Comment O-6-8
• Master Response 11, Item E
• Master Response 8
• Master Response 9
• Comment S-2-7
-Amy
Amy Stonich, AICP | Assistant Director
Community Development
P. (949) 461-3479 E. [email protected]
100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, CA
www.lakeforestca.gov
Item: 9
553
From: Cherie Liu < >
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:41 AM
To: Mansur, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Stonich, Amy <[email protected]> Cc: Pequeno, Robert <[email protected]>; Cirbo, Doug <[email protected]>; Tettemer, Mark <[email protected]>; Rose, Debra <[email protected]>; Yu, Benjamin <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Clarification Regarding Attorney General Correspondence and Final EIR Response
Dear Ms. Mansur and City Planning Staff,
I am writing regarding the Final EIR for the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project / SDP 06-21- 5437.

The California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Environmental Justice Bureau submitted a letter dated April 5, 2024, addressed to Amy Stonich, Assistant Director of Community Development, regarding the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project, SCH #2024030755. For convenience, I am attaching a copy of that letter.

The Attorney General’s letter raised concerns directly relevant to this project, including warehouse-related environmental impacts, diesel truck emissions, diesel particulate matter, NOx, noise, truck traffic, road deterioration, traffic accidents, unsafe conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, and land use conflicts between warehouses and sensitive receptors.

The letter also encouraged the City to consider the Attorney General’s warehouse best practices and mitigation measures when preparing the Draft EIR.

However, after reviewing the Final EIR, I do not see the Attorney General’s letter listed in the comment index or specifically addressed in the responses to comments.

Could the City please clarify the following:

1. Did the City receive the April 5, 2024 Attorney General letter?

2. If the City received it, why was the letter not included in the Final EIR comment index or responses to comments?

3. Did the City treat the Attorney General letter as a Notice of Preparation comment rather than a Draft EIR comment? If so, where in the Draft EIR or Final EIR did the City specifically address the Attorney General’s concerns and recommended warehouse mitigation measures?

4. Did the City evaluate and incorporate the Attorney General’s warehouse best practices Item: 9
554
and mitigation measures? If not, why not?

5. Will the Attorney General letter be included in the official administrative record for the Planning Commission hearing?

6. Will City staff provide a written response or supplemental explanation before the Planning Commission considers certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Site Development Permit?
This issue is important because the Attorney General’s letter specifically discusses the type of impacts that nearby residents have repeatedly raised: diesel emissions, truck traffic, noise, public health, land use compatibility, and impacts on sensitive receptors. These issues are central to whether the Final EIR is adequate and whether the project should be approved next to residential homes.

I respectfully request that the City respond to this inquiry before the Planning Commission hearing and include this email, the attached Attorney General letter, and the City’s response in the official public record and administrative record for the project.

Thank you,
Cherie from the Meadows
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
555
From: May Cai
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Concern About Manufacturing Uses in the IPT Project Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:40:55 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I recently learned that this project may allow manufacturing uses in addition to warehouse and office uses.

This concerns me because most residents have been told this is mainly a warehouse project.

Manufacturing can bring additional noise, truck traffic, air pollution, and other impacts.

What worries me even more is that the future tenant is still unknown. If we do not know who will operate the facility or what kind of manufacturing could take place there, how can the public fully understand the impacts of this project?
I believe residents deserve clear and complete information before any approval is granted.

As a resident living near this project, I do not feel comfortable approving a large industrial facility when we still do not know who the tenant will be or what activities may eventually take place there. I hope the Commission will require more transparency and a more thorough review before moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
May Cai
Meadows Resident in Lakewood forest
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
556
From: William Tseng
To: EnterpriseProjects; Planning Commission; Planning; Council; City Clerk; Stannard, Michael; Grable, Tom; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Voigts, Scott; Yu, Benjamin; Stonich, Amy; Ackerman, Gayle; Santos, Ron; Mansur, Jennifer; Musler, Connor; Erdman, Douglas; Slaven, Devin; Wright, Natalie
Subject: Please Deny the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project at 26200 Enterprise Way Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 8:26:42 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners, Mayor Pequeño, City Council Members, and City Staff,
I am writing to oppose the IPT Enterprise Business Center project proposed for 26200 Enterprise Way.

My request is simple: please deny this project. Do not certify the EIR. Do not approve the Site Development Permit. And do not allow this industrial warehouse and manufacturing project to move next to residential neighborhoods.

This is not the kind of project that closes to homes and children.

Lake Forest is a family community. People moved here because they believed the City would protect neighborhoods, schools, parks, and quality of life. This project would move the City in the opposite direction. It would bring a large industrial building, loading docks, diesel truck activity, possible manufacturing operations, and unknown future tenant risks into an area where families live their daily lives.

That is absolutely not acceptable.

The biggest problem is the uncertainty. The City is being asked to approve the building first and figure out the real operator later. But the future tenant is exactly what determines the real risk. Residents do not know what will be stored inside the building. We do not know what kind of manufacturing may happen there. We do not know the true truck volume and traffic activities. We do not know whether hazardous materials, batteries, chemicals, flammable products, or other higher-risk materials will be used or stored there.

Without that information, the City cannot honestly tell residents that this project is safe.

It is not enough to say future regulations will handle it. Once the entitlement is granted, the developer has the approval, and residents are left to live with the consequences. Families should not have to rely on after-the-fact enforcement when the better decision is to avoid creating the risk in the first place.

This project is especially concerning because of its proximity to sensitive receptors.

Item: 9
557
Nearby homes, children, seniors, and families would be exposed to the day-to-day impacts of industrial operations. Diesel truck emissions, idling, loading activity, noise, traffic, and emergency risks are not abstract issues when they are placed close to where people sleep, play, walk, and raise children.

Children deserve special consideration. Their lungs are still developing, and they should not be placed next to avoidable diesel and industrial exposure. Parents should not have to wonder whether a warehouse project approved by the City will make their child’s asthma worse, increase long-term health risk, or expose their neighborhood to an industrial accident.

If the City approves this project, those questions will not go away. They will become the City’s responsibility.

Recent industrial accidents should be a warning. Warehouse fires, chemical leaks, overheated tanks, equipment failures, and hazardous-materials emergencies do happen. They are not rare concerns invented by residents. They are real events that have forced evacuations, injured workers, endangered neighborhoods, and required major emergency responses.

The City should not wait until after an incident to admit that industrial uses should not have been placed so close to homes.

This is also a political accountability issue. Residents are raising these concerns before the vote. The risks are foreseeable. The uncertainty is obvious. The location problem is clear. If the City approves the project anyway, it will be very difficult later to claim surprise when residents complain about truck traffic, diesel fumes, noise, safety concerns, or fear of hazardous-materials incidents.

Approving this project would tell residents that their health and safety matter less than an industrial developer’s entitlement.

That is a message the City should not send.

The traffic issue is another reason to deny the project. Heavy trucks are not normal neighborhood traffic. They are larger, louder, harder to stop, and more dangerous around passenger cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and children. Even if the project routes trucks through designated roads, the surrounding area will still absorb the burden.

Intersections, local circulation, and nearby residents will be affected for years and possibly forever.

This project is being presented as a redevelopment of an existing site, but that does not make it harmless. Replacing an old building with a modern Item: 9
558
warehouse/manufacturing facility can still intensify the use, change the character of the area, and create new impacts that nearby residents can not accept.

The City should also look at the bigger picture. If this project is approved, it may set a precedent for more industrial intensification in the Enterprise Way area. One approval becomes the argument for the next approval. Over time, residents could find themselves living next to a growing industrial corridor that was never honestly presented to them as a long-term land-use shift.

That is absolutely not fair to the community.

I do not believe this problem can be solved with additional conditions. Conditions are often difficult to monitor and enforce. They also do not change the basic issue:
this site is too close to homes and sensitive receptors for a speculative warehouse/manufacturing project with an unknown tenant.

Please do not send the applicant back to make cosmetic changes. Please do not give the developer a checklist for how to repackage the same project. The responsible decision is to deny the project because the use is incompatible with the surrounding community.

I respectfully request that the City:

Deny the IPT Enterprise Business Center project;
Decline to certify the Final EIR;
Reject the Site Development Permit and related approvals; Make clear that speculative warehouse and manufacturing uses do not belong next to residential neighborhoods;
And protect Lake Forest families, especially children, from avoidable industrial health and safety risks.

Lake Forest should not become a city where residents have to fight to keep industrial truck activity away from their homes. The City has a chance to prevent a foreseeable mistake before it happens. Please choose the residents.

Please include this comment in the official record for the June 4 hearing and any future proceedings related to this project.

Sincerely,
Item: 9
559
Weinan William Tseng
A Concerned Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
560
From: Vivian Tseng
To: EnterpriseProjects; Planning Commission; Planning; Council; City Clerk; Stannard, Michael; Grable, Tom; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Voigts, Scott; Yu, Benjamin; Stonich, Amy; Ackerman, Gayle; Santos, Ron; Mansur, Jennifer; Musler, Connor; Erdman, Douglas; Slaven, Devin; Wright, Natalie
Subject: Please Deny the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project at 26200 Enterprise Way Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 8:03:34 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners, Mayor Pequeño, City Council Members, and City Staff,
I am writing to oppose the IPT Enterprise Business Center project proposed for 26200 Enterprise Way.

My request is simple: please deny this project. Do not certify the EIR. Do not approve the Site Development Permit. Do not allow this industrial warehouse and manufacturing project to move forward next to residential neighborhoods.

This is not the kind of project that belongs near homes and children.

That is not acceptable.

We do not know whether hazardous materials, batteries, chemicals, flammable products, or other higher-risk materials will be used or stored there.

Without that information, the City cannot honestly tell residents that this project is safe.

This project is especially concerning because of its proximity to sensitive Item: 9
561
receptors. Nearby homes, children, seniors, and families would be exposed to the day-to-day impacts of industrial operations. Diesel truck emissions, idling, loading activity, noise, traffic, and emergency risks are not abstract issues when they are placed close to where people sleep, play, walk, and raise children.

Children deserve special consideration. Their lungs are still developing, and they should not be placed next to avoidable diesel and industrial exposure. Parents should not have to wonder whether a warehouse project approved by the City will make their child’s asthma worse, increase longterm health risk, or expose their neighborhood to an industrial accident.

If the City approves this project, those questions will not go away. They will become the City’s responsibility.

They are real events that have forced evacuations, injured workers, endangered neighborhoods, and required major emergency responses.

The City should not wait until after an incident to admit that industrial uses should not have been placed so close to homes.

Approving this project would tell residents that their health and safety matter less than an industrial developer’s entitlement.

That is a message the City should not send.

This project is being presented as a redevelopment of an existing site, but that does not make it harmless. Replacing an old building with a modern warehouse/manufacturing facility can still intensify the use, change the character of the area, and create new impacts that nearby residents should not have to accept.

Item: 9
562
The City should also look at the bigger picture. If this project is approved, it may set a precedent for more industrial intensification in the Enterprise Way area. One approval becomes the argument for the next approval.

Over time, residents could find themselves living next to a growing industrial corridor that was never honestly presented to them as a longterm land-use shift.

That is not fair to the community.

I do not believe this problem can be solved with additional conditions.

Conditions are often difficult to monitor and enforce. They also do not change the basic issue: this site is too close to homes and sensitive receptors for a speculative warehouse/manufacturing project with an unknown tenant.

I respectfully request that the City:

Please include this comment in the official record for the June 4 hearing and any future proceedings related to this project.

Sincerely,
Vivian Tseng
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
563
Item: 9
564
From: Amy Stevens
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment – IPT Enterprise Business Center Project at 26200 Enterprise Way Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 6:49:34 PM
Dear Chair and Planning Commissioners,
My name is Amy Stevens, and I am a Lake Forest resident and homeowner. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting in person, but I wanted to submit the following comments for the record regarding the IPT Enterprise Business Center project at 26200 Enterprise Way.

I appreciate the amount of work that went into this Environmental Impact Report and the proposed mitigation measures for this project. I also want to be clear that I am not opposed to economic development or industrial uses generally. Cities need jobs, tax revenue, and spaces for businesses to operate and grow.

That said, I do think projects with acknowledged significant and unavoidable impacts deserve especially careful scrutiny and transparent discussion at the Planning Commission level.

What especially stood out to me in the report was the acknowledgment that the project exceeds the City’s vehicle miles traveled threshold by roughly 20%, while one of the primary mitigation measures discussed appears to reduce that impact by less than 1%. As a resident, that gap raises reasonable questions about whether the mitigation is truly proportional to the impacts being identified.

I am also mindful of the long-term neighborhood compatibility questions tied to truck traffic and circulation. The report references intersection improvements specifically related to large truck turning movements, and while that may be operationally necessary, it is still something nearby residents will experience in their daily lives through traffic, noise, and safety concerns.

One additional concern is that the future tenant and operational intensity of the site are still unknown. I understand the need for flexibility in industrial development, but that uncertainty can make it difficult for residents to fully understand what long-term impacts could ultimately look like once the site is occupied.

As the Commission considers this project, I encourage you to continue prioritizing transparency, realistic mitigation, and thoughtful long-term planning. Residents can support economic development while still expecting projects to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and aligned with the community’s broader goals and values.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Amy Stevens
Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
565
From: Cherie Liu
To: Stonich, Amy; Mansur, Jennifer; Planning Commission Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Rose, Debra; Yu, Benjamin Subject: Re: Request for Clarification Regarding Attorney General Correspondence and Final EIR Response Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:56:51 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Amy,
Thank you for your response and for identifying the portions of the Final EIR that the City believes address the issues raised in the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter.

Could the City please clarify the following before the Planning Commission hearing:

1. Which specific Attorney General warehouse best practices were incorporated into the project design, mitigation measures, or conditions of approval?

2. Which Attorney General warehouse best practices were not incorporated, and what is the City’s basis for rejecting them?

3. Will any of the Attorney General’s recommendations be included as enforceable conditions of approval, rather than merely discussed as general guidance?

6. Will Planning Commissioners receive the Attorney General’s April 5, 2024 letter and the City’s explanation of how that letter was addressed before they vote on certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Site Development Permit? Item: 9
566
The Attorney General’s letter specifically emphasized the need to avoid land use conflicts between warehouses and sensitive receptors and to mitigate warehouse-related diesel emissions, truck traffic, noise, and public health impacts. Because this project would place industrial/warehouse operations immediately adjacent to residential homes, these concerns are directly relevant to the Planning Commission’s decision.

I respectfully request that this email and the City’s response be included in the official public record and administrative record for the project.

Thank you,
Cherie
From: Stonich, Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 14:54
To: Cherie Liu ; Mansur, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Cc: Pequeno, Robert <[email protected]>; Cirbo, Doug <[email protected]>; Tettemer, Mark <[email protected]>; Rose, Debra <[email protected]>; Yu, Benjamin <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Request for Clarification Regarding Attorney General Correspondence and Final EIR Response
Cherie –
The April 5th letter from the AG was received during the scoping period and therefore, is included in the Scoping Summary Report (see page 5, last row of the table). The Scoping Summary Report (which includes a copy of all scoping comment letters received) was provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

The FEIR addresses the topics raised in the AG letter in the following responses:
• Comment O-6-8
• Master Response 11, Item E
• Master Response 8
• Master Response 9
• Comment S-2-7
-Amy
Amy Stonich, AICP | Assistant Director
Community Development
Item: 9
567
P. (949) 461-3479 E. [email protected]
100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, CA
www.lakeforestca.gov
From: Cherie Liu >
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:41 AM
To: Mansur, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Stonich, Amy <[email protected]> Cc: Pequeno, Robert <[email protected]>; Cirbo, Doug <[email protected]>; Tettemer, Mark <[email protected]>; Rose, Debra <[email protected]>; Yu, Benjamin <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Clarification Regarding Attorney General Correspondence and Final EIR Response
Dear Ms. Mansur and City Planning Staff,
I am writing regarding the Final EIR for the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project / SDP 06-21- 5437.

The letter also encouraged the City to consider the Attorney General’s warehouse best practices and mitigation measures when preparing the Draft EIR.

However, after reviewing the Final EIR, I do not see the Attorney General’s letter listed in the comment index or specifically addressed in the responses to comments.

Could the City please clarify the following:

1. Did the City receive the April 5, 2024 Attorney General letter?

2. If the City received it, why was the letter not included in the Final EIR comment index or Item: 9
568
responses to comments?

4. Did the City evaluate and incorporate the Attorney General’s warehouse best practices and mitigation measures? If not, why not?

5. Will the Attorney General letter be included in the official administrative record for the Planning Commission hearing?

Thank you,
Cherie from the Meadows
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
569
From: Wei Wen
To: Planning Commission; Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: Safety and Quality of Life Concerns – IPT Warehouse Project (The Meadows) Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:36:37 PM
Formal Letter to Lake Forest Planning Commission
wei wen
lake forest ca92630
May 26, 2026
Members of the Lake Forest Planning Commission
cc: Lake Forest City Council
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proximity and Safety Impacts of the IPT Warehouse Project on The Meadows Community
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I am writing to express my serious concerns about the IPT Business Center project, particularly regarding its extremely close distance to the The Meadows residential community.

According to the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the eastern boundary of the project property is only approximately 82 feet from the nearest residential home.

It is important to clarify that this 82‑foot measurement is taken from the project property line to the exterior wall of the closest residence in The Meadows. This distance does not account for the warehouse buildings themselves, truck loading zones, parking lots, or vehicle travel routes on‑site.

In other words, this is merely the shortest property‑line‑to‑house distance, not the actual distance residents will be from truck activity or potential sources of pollution.

The proposed project consists of large‑scale industrial warehouse space with extensive trucking operations, loading docks, and regular diesel vehicle activity. My primary concerns for the surrounding residential community are as follows:
• Persistent noise from heavy‑duty trucks
• Harmful diesel exhaust emissions
• Light pollution and disturbance from nighttime operations • Increased traffic‑related safety hazards for local residents Additionally, I have noticed the EIR does not include a comprehensive, standalone Health Risk Assessment (HRA) specifically addressing the unique risks of high‑volume diesel truck operations immediately adjacent to homes.

Recent incidents across California demonstrate the potential dangers of industrial and warehouse facilities near residential areas:
• A large‑scale chemical emergency in Garden Grove that required mass evacuations Item: 9
570
• Major warehouse fires in Ontario that caused severe property damage and long‑term community disruption These events show that such industrial facilities carry non‑negligible risks, and any on‑site emergency would directly impact nearby neighborhoods.

I respectfully request the commission to consider the following key points before making a final decision:

1. Whether the real‑world impacts of a warehouse this close to homes have been fully evaluated

2. Whether a complete Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be required for this project

3. Whether a larger buffer zone between the industrial site and residential homes is necessary to protect public safety and quality of life

4. Whether project design or layout modifications can reduce direct impacts on nearby residents The Meadows is a residential neighborhood of families with long‑term ties to the area. We will face permanent daily impacts from this project if approved as currently proposed.

I urge the Planning Commission to look beyond property‑line measurements and carefully weigh the real‑life consequences for local residents before granting approval.

Thank you for your time and consideration of community
wenny
wei wen
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
571
From: Bin Zhou
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer; Stannard, Michael; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Grable, Tom Subject: Public Comments prior to meeting OF PUBLIC HEARING BY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 12:59:18 PM
Attachments: Screenshot of the Petition.PNG
petition signatures.csv
Dear Members of the Lake Forest Planning Commission:

On behalf of many residents of the surrounding communities, I respectfully express our serious concerns regarding the proposed IPT Industrial Project and request that the Commission require the developer to complete a more comprehensive, transparent, and independent environmental impact analysis before making a final decision.

After reviewing the developer’s responses to comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), we believe there remain nine significant deficiencies and unresolved issues.

What residents are truly concerned about is that the impacts of today’s industrial logistics operations extend far beyond the traditional concept of industrial zones from decades ago.

Twenty-four-hour operations, continuous heavy truck traffic, long-term nighttime noise affecting residents’ sleep, air pollution and associated health risks, cumulative impacts from multiple industrial projects, and the clear incompatibility with nearby residential communities such as The Meadows are all critical issues that the developer has failed to adequately address.

I. Misrepresenting the Distance Issue
Residents pointed out that truck routes entering and exiting the project site may be less than 100 feet from residential community walls.

However, the developer responded by stating that the loading docks are approximately 200 feet from the nearest residences.

Residents are concerned about the actual distance between truck travel routes and residential areas, whereas the developer addressed the location of the loading docks. These are not the same issue, and the response does not genuinely answer the concern raised by residents.

II. Responding to “Reasonableness” with “Legality”
Residents are concerned that 24-hour operations will result in long-term nighttime disturbances from truck backup alarms, air brake releases, engine idling, and loading and unloading activities, negatively affecting sleep quality.

The developer responded that projected nighttime noise levels would be approximately 50 dBA and therefore comply with applicable regulatory standards.

However, residents are not merely asking whether the project is legal; they are asking whether it is compatible with residential living and whether people will be able to sleep normally.

Compliance with regulations does not necessarily mean there will be no significant impact on residents’ quality of life.

III. Future Tenants Are Unknown, Yet Risks Are Claimed to Be Fully Analyzed The developer acknowledges that future tenants have not yet been identified, while simultaneously asserting that environmental analyses have been completed using so-called “conservative assumptions.”
Residents reasonably question this approach:

If the future tenant types, storage contents, chemical usage, and scale of manufacturing activities are all unknown, then what exactly are these “conservative assumptions” based on? Given the absence of critical operational information, the credibility and reliability of the environmental risk analysis warrant further scrutiny.

IV. Cumulative Impacts of Three Industrial Projects Have Not Been Fully Disclosed Residents remain concerned about the cumulative impacts that could result from simultaneous operation of this project and other proposed industrial developments in the area.

These impacts include:

Increased truck traffic;
Combined air pollutant emissions;
Increased nighttime noise levels;
Greater long-term health risks.

However, the developer has not provided the public with complete data and analysis regarding the combined effects of all three projects operating together.

V. Apparent Underestimation of Truck Idling Time
Residents have pointed out that the environmental analysis assumes a truck idling time of only 15 minutes, which appears significantly lower than real-world conditions.

Based on operational experience at numerous logistics facilities throughout Southern California, actual waiting times often exceed 30 minutes or more.

The developer responded that even if idling time were doubled to 30 minutes, the risks would remain below regulatory thresholds.

However, this response still fails to explain why the original assumption differs so substantially from actual operating conditions.

VI. Rejection of Professional Recommendations from Caltrans The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) formally requested additional analysis regarding traffic conditions and bicycle facility impacts on roads including Dimension Drive, Monarch Street, and Catalina Avenue.

However, the developer responded that these roadways are “outside the study area.” Residents believe that disregarding the professional recommendations of the state transportation authority undermines the public’s ability to fully understand the project’s potential transportation impacts.

VII. Shifting the Burden of Proof to Residents
In multiple responses, the developer repeatedly stated that “residents have not provided sufficient evidence” to support their concerns.

In reality, residents do not have access to the complete underlying data used in the project analyses, including:

Emissions model parameters;
Meteorological modeling data;
Health risk assessment methodologies;
Item: 9
572
Data used in cumulative impact analyses involving all three projects.

Given this significant information imbalance, shifting the burden of proof to ordinary residents is clearly unfair.

VIII. Historical Industrial Zoning Does Not Justify Unlimited Intensification of Impacts The developer emphasizes that the site has been designated for industrial use since 1987.

However, residents are not opposing industrial zoning itself. Rather, they are concerned about the dramatic changes associated with modern high-intensity logistics operations.

Past industrial use does not mean that today’s more intensive 24-hour logistics activities, frequent heavy truck traffic, and continuous noise pollution can be expanded indefinitely without careful reevaluation.

IX. The Future Use May Include Manufacturing, Not Just Warehousing Project documents clearly state that the site permits a variety of industrial uses, including office, manufacturing, and warehousing activities.

This means the project may ultimately involve not only warehousing and logistics operations but also manufacturing activities.

Manufacturing operations are often associated with:

More complex industrial equipment;
More persistent operational noise;
Higher transportation demands;
Greater air pollution risks.

Therefore, uncertainty regarding the project’s future use further increases residents’ concerns about long-term environmental impacts.

Widespread Community Opposition
In response to this project, residents from multiple surrounding communities have independently organized an online petition.

To date, more than 1,235 households have signed in opposition to the project.

Petition link:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__chng.it_VnzkjvRrMw&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOfv5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=iMzdwJXaxx1olUq8AVTvSnsHarkqRPj6R6ohs1IRpAcBrkBJGeHpP4xW2tXdXI9V&m=SgAqw3HTPKgr75V02D3u69kMIzGFFyCVrg3zEFexQsKQ0wDp5JoW0i9v3188rQy&s=WkB7-QlZbyAybWTJmcMxB8StwUUk0HX7qJX7f7ARayQ&e= Copies of the petition signatures and related materials are enclosed for the Commission’s reference.

Conclusion
We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to carefully consider the issues outlined above and, before approving the project:

Require the developer to provide and publicly disclose a complete cumulative impact analysis; Conduct more comprehensive and independent evaluations of traffic, noise, air quality, and health risks; Fully consider compatibility issues between the project and surrounding residential communities; Respect and meaningfully address the legitimate concerns expressed by residents.

The Commission’s decision will affect not only today, but also the quality of life, health, and safety of Lake Forest residents for decades to come.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Bin Zhou
Residents of the Lake Forest Surrounding Communities
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
573
Item: 9
574
Item: 9
575
Name City State Postal Code Country Signed On
Bin Zhou Buffalo Grove IL 60089 United States 1/5/2025
Shuqin Jin Los Angeles CA 90065 United States 1/5/2025
Yingzi Peng Irvine CA 92620 United States 1/5/2025
Harrison Jiang Lake CA 92694 United States 1/6/2025
hua jiang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Linda Gu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Wayne Yang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
bo Chen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Chenxin Cai Laguna Niguel CA 92603 United States 1/6/2025 Tingting Wan Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 connie ding Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Mindy Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Vivian Zhao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Sharon Hu Mountain view CA ca 94040 United States 1/6/2025 Ming Chen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Qianyu Ye Anaheim CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Kevin Xie Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Cherie Liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
jason ye irvine CA 92603 United States 1/6/2025
Jeffrey Yu Anaheim CA 92801 United States 1/6/2025
xiangan cai Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Valeriya Hudson Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Jing Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Rose Liu Foothill Ranch CA 92610 United States 1/6/2025 Cindy Chen Plano TX 75025 United States 1/6/2025
Tao Wu Ontario CA 91761 United States 1/6/2025
Si Zheng Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Chao Huang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Katherine Nagasawa Oakland CA 94607 United States 1/6/2025 Minmin Tian Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Rita Cox Lebanon TN 37090 United States 1/6/2025
Lin Zhu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Haichen Liu Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Susana Muñoz Madrid 28019 Spain 1/6/2025
Hanneke Mol Poortvliet NE 4693EG United States 1/6/2025 angelika+ thomas wegner 51399 Germany 1/6/2025
Hong Zhu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Katalin Kónya-Jakus Szatymaz Hungary 1/6/2025
Gama Leong George Town 11060 Malaysia 1/6/2025
xiuying zhou Irvine CA 92620 United States 1/6/2025
Lucky Hu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Darcy Rubin Los Angeles CA 90023 United States 1/6/2025 Diana Lees Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 United States 1/6/2025 Eva Dyan Los Angeles CA 90017 United States 1/6/2025
Zhongdong Ma Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 armer teufel reger Nurnberg 90443 Germany 1/6/2025
Item: 9
576
Bill Chen Ladera Ranch CA 92694 United States 1/6/2025
Yolanda Schultes Wittenbach 9300 Sweden 1/6/2025
Julie Port Slough SL1 United Kingdom 1/6/2025
zeit zhu lake forest CA 92630-8472 United States 1/6/2025 Yuxin Shi lake forest CA 92692 United States 1/6/2025
celine duburg anchen montevideo Uruguay 1/6/2025
SHIRLEY AUSTIN London ENG E6 2EX United States 1/6/2025 hortencia mendoza 44260 Mexico 1/6/2025
Sachin Padhiyar Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Yishu zhu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Vivian Gu Yorba Linda CA 92886 United States 1/6/2025
Cheng Zhu Henderson NV 89012 United States 1/6/2025
Nitin Divekar Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Jary Du Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Fournier Fernande Luxembourg 1482 Luxembourg 1/6/2025
zhujia lu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Mindy Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Stephen Bian Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Martine Cuisenaire Heer 5543 Belgium 1/6/2025
Charles Cruz Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Reema Kanda Fontana CA 92337 United States 1/6/2025
Madelein Blundred Lake Dallas TX 75065 United States 1/6/2025 REZA BERENJFOROOSHAZAR Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Perng nian Chu Taiwan 1/6/2025
Anna Trella Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Shayna Tyler 10000 France 1/6/2025
Jiaoyang Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Susie Xu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Bambi Mayr Austria 1/6/2025
Kai Chen Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/6/2025
Basra Purdy Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Yizhou Xu Anaheim CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Hu Yu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Jinlan Yang Irvine CA 92604 United States 1/6/2025
Susan Zhao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Jim Chao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Maria van Geel. Poznan Poland 1/6/2025
Aaron Xie Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/6/2025
marc huysmans Edegem Belgium 1/6/2025
Dominique Girard Marseille 13001 France 1/6/2025
Fangxian Wei Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Fengwei Wu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Xinyu Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Helen Yang Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/6/2025
Claudia Neuhalfen Bonn 53117 Germany 1/6/2025
Shawn Liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Bob Zhou Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Item: 9
577
Viola Yu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Marilyn Gonzalez Philippines 1/6/2025
jiwen ding Corona CA 92882 United States 1/6/2025
Jianhua Rong Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Sam Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
Tom Atha Alhambra CA 91801 United States 1/6/2025
Jian Xing Huntington Beach CA 92647 United States 1/6/2025 Sophia Zhu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025
R S Koln 51069 Germany 1/6/2025
Astrid Beatrix Geest Stadskanaal 9502 Netherlands 1/6/2025 Mirjam Talma Buitenpost 9285VZ Netherlands 1/6/2025
jocelyne lapointe terrebonne j6w0b5 Canada 1/6/2025
Liao Tingwen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/6/2025 Yuxiang Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Hong Chao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Eric Zhou Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Liting Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Bingwen Zhang Hong Kong SAR China 1/7/2025
Claudette Guy Highland CA 92346 United States 1/7/2025
B o Song Santa Ana CA 92705 United States 1/7/2025
Liping wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Yin Sheng Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Nize Li lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
sarika arora Alpharetta GA 30022 United States 1/7/2025 xinzhou wu Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/7/2025
xi yang Cerritos CA 90703 United States 1/7/2025
Kaixi Liu Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Jieyu Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 XIAO HONG Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Rui Wang Ladera Ranch CA 92694 United States 1/7/2025
Yu Hu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Min Du Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Jiachen Dai Tustin CA 92782 United States 1/7/2025
Jiachen Chu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Jing qin lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Maria Charney Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Mei Ma Fan Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Wendy J Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Quan Gao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Song Feng Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Zhenyu Yan Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Dong Yan Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
corine cathala Pierrelatte 26700 France 1/7/2025
Yaxi Yue lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Michelle Bai Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Baohui Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Lily Z Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Item: 9
578
Carol Yu Foothill Ranch CA 92610 United States 1/7/2025 Dominique LANG Vaison-la-Romaine 84110 France 1/7/2025
Andrew Vallender Ventnor ENG PO38 1BH United Kingdom 1/7/2025 Jun Jin Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 United States 1/7/2025 barbara franchs colorado springs CO 80920 United States 1/7/2025 Christopher Evans Shobdon HR6 United Kingdom 1/7/2025
Rosa Cabrerizo Hospitalet de Llobregat 8905 Spain 1/7/2025 Lu Lin Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Jun Xie San Diego CA 92127 United States 1/7/2025
Daniel Xu Walnut CA 91789 United States 1/7/2025
Chang Chang Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Consuelo Serena Velasco Strambino Fr Cerone 10019 Italy 1/7/2025 Angela Hu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
michael Hu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Petra Achtzehnter Kaiserslautern 67663 Germany 1/7/2025 Yuna Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Sabine Möhler esselbach 97839 Germany 1/7/2025
Sue Cone Hull ENG HU13 9DS United Kingdom 1/7/2025
Anke O. Auerbach 8209 Germany 1/7/2025
Anneke Andries Raamsdonksveer 4941JT Netherlands 1/7/2025 Robert Nowak Poland 1/7/2025
sara sang los angeles CA 91601 United States 1/7/2025
Baolin Zhou Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Anne Montarou Ahrensburg 22926 Germany 1/7/2025
Nelly PRESTAT Mouroux 77120 France 1/7/2025
Caroline Sévilla Paris 75001 France 1/7/2025
Kate Kenner Guilford VT 5301 United States 1/7/2025
Maryann Staron Hometown IL 60456 United States 1/7/2025 Joyce Alexander Edinburgh SCT EH15 United Kingdom 1/7/2025 Renee Wang Los Angeles CA 90003 United States 1/7/2025
Junhua Xu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Yizhuang Kang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Jiayi Zhu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Christine Thörnwall Norrköping 602 22 Sweden 1/7/2025
Yan Gu Lake Foreat CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Po-Yuan Lin Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Taiheng Jin Orange CA 92868 United States 1/7/2025
Fengyi Yang 311 Newton lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Jingping Guo Pittsburgh PA 15212 United States 1/7/2025 Tracy Guo Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Anna Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Ana Gruber Wolfratshausen 82515 Germany 1/7/2025
Dan Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Weidong Zhao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Chuan Zhan Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Zhu Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Frédéric Jaubert Pont de Chéruy 38230 France 1/7/2025
Item: 9
579
Gordon Hu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Jinguo Wang Santa Ana CA 92703 United States 1/7/2025
Kevin Yin Foothill Ranch CA 92610 United States 1/7/2025 lucy liu Foothill Ranch CA 92610 United States 1/7/2025 Farshid Gh Las Vegas NV 89128 United States 1/7/2025
Janson Xu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Jazmyne Byrd Atlanta GA United States 1/7/2025
Shunhua ZHAN Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 XIA CAO Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
lucy hu lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Grace Shi Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
YZ Lu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Vivian Wu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Roxana Moya Santiago Chile 1/7/2025
Bruce Forster Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 United Kingdom 1/7/2025 Peter Hu Irvine CA 92620 United States 1/7/2025
Elisabeth Bechmann Polten 3100 Austria 1/7/2025
Debbie Peng Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025 Lynne Holt Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/7/2025
Cong Lu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025
Jan Harvell Funtington ENG PO18 9LH United Kingdom 1/8/2025 Valérie Paillard Savigny-le-Temple 77176 France 1/8/2025 jianyin chen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025 Xiaoling Chai Lake Forest CA 92618 United States 1/8/2025 ling gong 231 burwood CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025
Ethan Zeng Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025
Rita Gu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025
Gia Wang Santa Ana CA 92703 United States 1/8/2025
lu zhang Irvine CA 92620 United States 1/8/2025
Xiaobo Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025 yaotong shang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025 jackie chang Dallas TX 75247 United States 1/8/2025
Wendy Forster United Kingdom 1/8/2025
Heidi Siebens Muizen 2800 Belgium 1/8/2025
Weijie Wang Tustin CA 92782 United States 1/8/2025
Maria Eloisa Ruiz Fort Collins CO 80525 United States 1/8/2025 Gerald Hallead Traverse City MI 49684-6605 United States 1/8/2025 Hongen Wen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025
Jifeng Jiang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025 Ming lee 洛杉矶 CA 90089 United States 1/8/2025
Sarah de Sousa Spring Branch TX 78070 United States 1/8/2025 Tanya Lin Ladera Ranch CA 92694 United States 1/8/2025
Yong Lu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025
youxing tao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025 Sijia Powers Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025 David Ham Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025
Yuling Zou Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025
Item: 9
580
Jianzhong Zhu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025 Ivan Lee Mission Viejo CA 92692 United States 1/8/2025
Raleigh Koritz St Paul MN 55114 United States 1/8/2025
Shelly Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/8/2025 Min Xie Santa Ana CA 92703 United States 1/8/2025
shelley zagars Torrance CA 90505 United States 1/9/2025 Lucy Cai Santa Ana CA 92703 United States 1/9/2025
Darcy Rubin Los Angeles CA 90027 United States 1/9/2025 L Saunders Masterton New Zealand 1/9/2025
Elliot Liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025
Ezra Gibson United States 1/9/2025
fiona Liu Hong Kong SAR China 1/9/2025
Sylvi Christiansen Sarpsborg Norway 1/9/2025
Pam Miller Tolar TX 76046 United States 1/9/2025
Brett Allen North Hills CA 91343 United States 1/9/2025 Mikey Sanchez Mcallen TX 78501 United States 1/9/2025
Sylvie Auger Saint-georges G5Y Canada 1/9/2025
Devan McNeal Aliso Viejo CA 92656 United States 1/9/2025 Ying Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025
Guoliang Xu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025 Dylan Liu Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/9/2025
Xiaobo Huang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025 Hsiuching Kuo Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025 Cody Huang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025
Julia Ge Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025
JIAN CHEN Walnut CA 91789 United States 1/9/2025
Freya Harris Atlanta GA 30342 United States 1/9/2025
Jocelyn Liang Arcadia CA 91006 United States 1/9/2025
xiaojuan lu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025 Christine Li lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/9/2025 Sherry Liu Huntington Beach CA 92646 United States 1/10/2025 curtis wang San Diego CA 92104 United States 1/10/2025
Ping He Irvine CA 92603 United States 1/10/2025
Kristina Sedic Zagreb 10000 Croatia 1/10/2025
Nan Liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/10/2025
Mei Zhan Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/10/2025
Zhiqi Gong Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/10/2025 Yanfeng Ye United States 1/10/2025
yanli wu Ladera Ranch CA 92694 United States 1/10/2025
Xiaotong Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/10/2025 Ariana Wu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/10/2025
Anna Hahm Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/10/2025
Ziyu Zhang Westminster CA 92683 United States 1/10/2025 Jessie Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Jinzhu Wu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Tian Ding Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
May Cai Santa Ana CA 92703 United States 1/11/2025
Item: 9
581
Juehong Chen Hong Kong SAR China 1/11/2025
Dan De Yo Yorba Linda CA 92886 United States 1/11/2025
Kevin Chiang Lake Forest CA 92603 United States 1/11/2025 Yue Hao zhuo Anaheim CA 92804 United States 1/11/2025
Shawna Zhang Ladera Ranch CA 92694 United States 1/11/2025 Sandra Rembis Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 United States 1/11/2025 Yan Rong Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Nanxiang Zhang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 dongmei han Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/11/2025
Jamie Dufault Los Angeles CA 90006 United States 1/11/2025 Yi Ma Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/11/2025
Frank Cristaldi Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Eric Yu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Jing Xu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Nancy Zhao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Enoch Liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Zhixin Zheng Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Siqi Chen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Jiyoon Jeong Los Angeles CA 90060 United States 1/11/2025 Roy Liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Tony Yang Irvine CA 92614 United States 1/11/2025
Sarah Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Bing Wen Zhang Hong Kong SAR China 1/11/2025
Jenny Pham Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Ann Hij Irvine CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Reema Abuzir Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 John N Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Gaurav Sharma Mission Viejo CA 92691 United States 1/11/2025 Kelvin Chong Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Yini Zhu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025
Shaoli Huang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Guang Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Joanna Parker Los Angeles CA 90046 United States 1/11/2025 Tiffany Wooden Oxnard CA 93030 United States 1/11/2025
Xuanyi Ouyang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/11/2025 Youwei Xia Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Alona Mashevska Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Rufang Chen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Zhipeng Jia Irvine CA 92602 Denmark 1/12/2025
Huthyfah Abed Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Huey Chong Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Zhikun Wu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025
xiuyi yu Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025
Zhiqin Liao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Xinyi Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Yang Dong Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025
Yiyi Shi Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025
Item: 9
582
Grace Tsai Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Deping Ye Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025
Yin Yin North Hollywood CA 91606 United States 1/12/2025 Andrea Lewis Hartford CT 6112 United States 1/12/2025
Lilin Song Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Iman B Trabuco Canyon CA 92679 United States 1/12/2025
weitian zhou Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/12/2025 Christna Frutuoso Esch 4069 Luxembourg 1/12/2025
Samuel Ka Los Angeles CA 90060 United States 1/13/2025
Marie-José CHOBERT Orléans 45000 France 1/13/2025
Ryan Xu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025
linda liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025
Kathy Bui Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025
Kristen Downey Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025 Makenna Petruzzi Mission Viejo CA 92691 United States 1/13/2025 Joshua Gould Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025 Veronique Dick 57700 France 1/13/2025
Elvera Nani Mission Viejo CA 92692 United States 1/13/2025 Janet Lee Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025
Veronica Woltman Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025 Cheryl Chun Foothill Ranch CA 92610 United States 1/13/2025 Lily Bijdam Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025 Kandice Morruthers Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/13/2025 April Howard Foothill Ranch CA 92610 United States 1/13/2025 Kim Winburn Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 kathy Chen Trabuco Canyon CA 92679 United States 1/14/2025 Tian Lan Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Ali Hajisattari Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Lisa Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Annie Huang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Tao Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Congyu Zhang Indianapolis IN 46260 United States 1/14/2025 Tony Lau Sammamish WA 98074 United States 1/14/2025
Yaling Zhou Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 xuemei li Garden Grove CA 92840 United States 1/14/2025 Jiaxin Tang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Wendi Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Diana De Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Yang Zheng Ladera Ranch CA 92694 United States 1/14/2025 Ruchi Mitra Irvine CA 92620 United States 1/14/2025
Bubu Cheng Ladera Ranch CA 92694 United States 1/14/2025 Neha Vaid Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Rui Lai Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Marion Renner Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Stephen Bian Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 June Bian Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Carina Cai Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Item: 9
583
Bryan Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Xi Liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Peng Sun Montpelier VT 5602 United States 1/14/2025
Ty Shao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Weinan Tseng Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Sid Menon Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Christine Lee-Kim Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Michael Gu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Ally Wu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Grace Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Lynn Cheng Mission Viejo CA 92691 United States 1/14/2025 Beibei Zhao Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Hsin Tien Chou Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Wenfang yin Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Ashlee Liu Moreno Valley CA 92555 United States 1/14/2025 Yan Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Katherine Li Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Wendi Alvarez Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Trisha Bube Trabuco Canyon CA 92679 United States 1/14/2025 Alexsis Veal Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 kylie van leeuwen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Ting Wang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Gol Golshani Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Joan Konkolewski Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Kailing Li Indianapolis IN 46260 United States 1/14/2025 Frank Wang San Jose CA 95123 United States 1/14/2025
Lixin Xu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Sherry Chen Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 John Wang Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/14/2025
Charles Xiong Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Yuanyuan Jia Lakeforest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025 Sunny Wu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/14/2025
Shawna Newbern Los Angeles CA 90002 United States 1/14/2025 DEBBIE FAGAN Yorba Linda CA 92886 United States 1/14/2025 Tian Zhao Irvine CA 92602 United States 1/14/2025
Thelma Cerna Ontario CA 91762 United States 1/14/2025
May Xi Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025
Hongzheng Lu Irvine CA 92618 United States 1/15/2025
Yuhang Wu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025
Vivian Tseng Taiwan 1/15/2025
Emily Chiang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025 Richard Chiang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025 Christine Rong Lake forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025 Ke Martens Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025 Michael Liu Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025 Chi He Singapore 1/15/2025
David Guia Foothill Ranch CA 92610 United States 1/15/2025 Item: 9
584
Meisi Huang Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025 Nicole Barrios Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025 Turpin John Lake Forest CA 92630 United States 1/15/2025 Item: 9
585
From:

To: Stonich, Amy; EnterpriseProjects
Cc: Ackerman, Gayle; Barajas, Francisco; Ludden, Thomas; Grable, Tom; Stannard, Michael; Villwock, Jordan; Voigts, Scott; Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Smith, Amy Subject: Re: Subject: Public Comments on IPT Draft EIR for Proposed Warehouse and Manufacturing Complex in Lake Forest, CA
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 5:01:28 PM
June 3, 2026
Dear Ms. Stonich and Members of the Lake Forest
Planning Commission and the City Council,
One of the critical issues concerning the planned Enterprise Warehouse Project is the friction where a city changes an agricultural or nursery parcel into a massive residential community like The Meadows without updating the adjacent industrial zoning—is a widespread issue known in city planning as a "Zoning Incompatibility" or "Buffer Failure."
Historically, cities across the United States used traditional "Euclidian" zoning, which kept uses completely separate. However, as the demand for logistics centers surged and cities rapidly approved new housing developments, many municipalities were forced to pass "Good Neighbor" ordinances, mandatory downzoning, or specific industrial buffer laws to correct these exact situations.

However there have been many examples across California and the United States demonstrate how cities have intervened with sensible zoning changes to protect residents from neighboring industrial footprints:

1. Unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA: The "Green Zones" Ordinance The Problem: Decades of residential expansion
pushed new housing developments directly against
older light-industrial and manufacturing parcels.

The Sensible Correction: In 2022, Los Angeles County
enacted the Green Zones Ordinance. It mandates a
strict 500-foot protective buffer radius whenever an
industrial zone sits next to a sensitive use, such as a residential neighborhood.

The Buffer Rule: Any industrial facility operating
within that 500-foot buffer is stripped of "by-right"
building privileges. They are subject to a mandatory
Item: 9
586
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), severe building height
caps, heavy tree/landscaping screens, and a legal ban
on heavy truck operations between 6:00 PM and 8:00
AM.

2. Southwest Fresno, CA: The Southwest Specific Plan Rezoning The Problem: Mirroring the Lake Forest situation,
major developers acquired agricultural land on
Fresno’s edge for master-planned neighborhoods.

However, thousands of adjacent acres remained
zoned for heavy distribution warehouses, threatening
to engulf the incoming homes in diesel exhaust.

The Sensible Correction: Recognizing the public
health hazard, the Fresno City Council enacted a
comprehensive rezoning overhaul. The city
systematically stripped the industrial designation
from hundreds of acres of vacant land bordering the
residential sites and downzoned them to "Mixed-Use
Residential" and light commercial to act as a
permanent, non-industrial buffer shield.

3. Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA: The 1,000-Foot Warehouse Buffer Movement
The Problem: In the Inland Empire—the logistics
capital of Southern California—entire master-planned
suburbs were built on former agricultural citrus
groves, immediately bordering plots zoned for light
industrial use.

The Sensible Correction: Cities like Fontana and
Rialto faced massive community backlashes and
subsequent legal interventions by the California
Attorney General. In response, cities began passing
specific logistics moratoriums and updated
Item: 9
587
ordinances requiring a minimum 1,000-foot buffer
zone between any new warehouse loading dock and a
residential property line. These codes mandate that
the buffer zone feature solid 15-to-20-foot acoustic
walls and dense, multi-tier evergreen tree canopies to
catch particulate matter (PM2.5) before it reaches
homes.

4. Mission Bay, San Francisco, CA: Industrial-to-Mixed-Use Conversion The Problem: Mission Bay was a historic rail yard and
heavy industrial shipyard zone. As San Francisco’s
population grew and housing pushed outward, the city
faced a massive incompatibility issue with active
industrial plots sitting adjacent to new high-density
residential developments.

The Sensible Correction: Rather than leaving the
industrial zoning intact and creating an environmental
health crisis, the San Francisco Planning Department
executed a sweeping master-plan conversion. The
industrial zoning was completely retired and rezoned
into biomedical research, commercial office, and
multi-family residential zoning, ensuring that no
heavy transport, loading docks, or chemical
manufacturing could ever take place directly next to
the new homes.

The Above Examples Apply to Lake Forest's Arguments
In land-use law, residents of The Meadows, the adjacent affordable senior living community and Baker Ranch can argue that the city's past approval of the Toll Brothers residential master plan created a "changed condition" on the ground.

Because the city changed the agricultural nursery into a residential zone, the original "light industrial" designation of the Panasonic site is no longer compatible with its surroundings.

Item: 9
588
As a logical and sensible argument, I and the many residents of The Meadows demand the Planning Commission members as well as the City Council members to seriously consider our concerns and, more importantly, demonstrate you truly represent the interest of the citizens in the City of Lake Forest:

1. Deny the project until a comprehensive zone change
is initiated to turn the Enterprise Way parcels into
commercial offices, retail, or medical parks (uses
compatible with homes).

Enforce a massive physical buffer setback (e.g., 500-
1000 feet) from the property line of The Meadows and the adjacent affordable senior living community by pushing
the actual warehouse footprint and truck dock doors deep into the interior of the industrial park.
it's highly appreciated the above is taken into
consideration when you deliberate on the proposed
Enterprise Warehouse Project and other proposed
warehouse projects in the neighborhood of The
Meadows.

Warm regards,
Kevin
On Wednesday, September 3, 2025 at 10:35:11 AM PDT, >
wrote:

Item: 9
589
Dear Ms. Stonich and Members of the Lake Forest Planning Commission and the City Council,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Lake Forest, California ("The Meadows"), to submit public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in which I discovered some troubling claims (yellow highlighted in the passage from the DEIR) that blatantly dismissed valid and widely accepted concern which is scientifically studied in multiple publications from the various government agencies from Federal to the State of California as well as public and private entities regarding the adverse impact of warehouses and their negative impact on the health and wellbeing of people living hear the facilities.
"4.3.3.1 Air Pollutants and Health Effects Both State and federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards (California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS] and National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS], respectively) for six criteria air pollutants:1 carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM). In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants may result in adverse health effects. However, emission thresholds established by an air district are used to manage total regional emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants.

These emission thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations and could adversely affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants. Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basinwide context of individual project emissions, there is no known direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity.

This condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOCs. Occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. Persons engaged in strenuous outdoor work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality. Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise." (IPT DEIR page 4.3-2 to 4.3-3) Specifically I am deeply concerned with the assertion in the Draft EIR (DEIR) that Item: 9
590
"Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual project emissions, there is no known direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity." This statement appears unscientific and baseless, as it dismisses the well-documented links between localized emissions from industrial projects like warehouses and adverse health outcomes, particularly for nearby sensitive populations. By framing impacts solely in a regional context, the DEIR overlooks substantial evidence from peerreviewed studies and regulatory guidance that individual projects can indeed cause measurable, harmful localized pollution, especially when sited near residential areas.

First, the DEIR's claim ignores the distinction between regional pollutants (e.g., ozone precursors like NOx and VOCs, which have basin-wide effects) and localized pollutants (e.g., particulate matter [PM2.5 and PM10], nitrogen dioxide [NO2], and diesel exhaust) that warehouses generate through truck traffic and operations. While regional thresholds under the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and CEQA are designed for attainment planning, they do not preclude localized health risks from a single project. Numerous studies demonstrate direct correlations between warehouse proximity and elevated local pollution levels, leading to health effects like asthma, cardiovascular disease, and premature death
(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11269699/). For instance, a nationwide analysis using satellite data found that U.S. warehouses increase local NO2 levels by nearly 20% on average, primarily from diesel trucks, with even higher spikes in disadvantaged communities near facilities like the proposed IPT warehouse (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11269699/). Another study in Southern California, a region with similar air quality challenges to Lake Forest, showed that warehouse expansion correlates with higher ambient PM2.5 and elemental carbon levels, disproportionately affecting nearby residents and contributing to respiratory illnesses (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11410679/). These effects are not merely theoretical; a report from the Environmental Defense Fund linked warehouse truck emissions to increased childhood asthma and heart disease risks in communities of color and low-income areas, where pollution burdens are already high (https://environmentalhealth.ucdavis.edu/air-pollution/californias-warehouse-boomraises-health-concerns).

The assertion is further undermined by evidence that even projects emitting below regional thresholds can cause localized "hotspots" of pollution, particularly from diesel particulate matter (DPM) and ultrafine particles not fully captured by basin-wide models. For example, research on warehouse clusters in the Inland Empire (comparable to Lake Forest's proposed developments) revealed significant associations between warehouse activity and elevated air pollution, noise, and trafficrelated health issues, including higher rates of asthma and cancer (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692322001636). A NASAfunded study in Los Angeles-area warehouses confirmed that particulate pollution from such facilities is linked to respiratory diseases, cancers, and adverse birth outcomes, with communities within 200–500 feet (like The Meadows and the senior apartments) facing the greatest exposure (https://www.nasa.gov/earth/nasa-funded-studyItem: 9 591
assesses-pollution-near-los-angeles-area-warehouses/). Dismissing these as noncorrelated ignores the "conservative nature" of thresholds, which are meant to err on the side of caution precisely because individual projects can contribute to cumulative, localized harms that delay air basin attainment and endanger nearby residents.

Moreover, CEQA explicitly requires EIRs to analyze both regional and localized air quality impacts, including those from single projects, to ensure public disclosure and mitigation (https://www.slc.ca.gov/ceqa/). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guidelines emphasize project-level assessments for localized pollutants, using tools like Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to evaluate risks within the project vicinity (https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds). Similarly, SCAQMD and statewide guidelines mandate that EIRs consider sensitive receptors (e.g., seniors, children) near sources of toxic air contaminants, requiring mitigation if thresholds are exceeded—even for individual projects
(https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch2EnvRevThresholds4- 25-2020.pdf). The DEIR's blanket dismissal contradicts this, potentially violating CEQA's requirement for substantial evidence in impact assessments (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2). If a single project like this warehouse can exceed emission thresholds for NO2 or PM, it logically contributes to localized health risks, as evidenced by studies showing 17.9%–20% higher NO2 near warehouses, directly linked to pediatric asthma and premature death (https://www.healio.com/news/allergyasthma/20240801/warehouses-add-179-more-nitrogen-dioxide-to-their-communities).

In conclusion, the DEIR's assertion is not only baseless but also contrary to scientific consensus and CEQA mandates, which demand rigorous analysis of project-specific, localized effects. By understating these risks, the EIR fails to fulfill its purpose of informing decision-makers and protecting communities like The Meadows and the senior apartments from foreseeable harms. A revised EIR should incorporate sitespecific modeling, health risk assessments, and mitigation measures, such as zeroemission trucks or enhanced buffers, to address these deficiencies.

I hope my concern will receive due attention and further assessment is required to in order to provide a more scientific and balanced view of the matter.

Please confirm the receipt of my comment letter and thanks for your time.

Warm regards,
Kevin Xie
mobile
Item: 9
592
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
593
From: G Mona
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Site Development Permit (SDP) 06-21-5437 : 26200 Enterprise Way Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 2:18:13 PM
Dear Lake Forest Planning Commission,
Residents are profoundly concerned to witness the City of Lake Forest continuing to ignore constituent concerns by green lighting the development of an enlarged manufacturing and industrial site at 26200 Enterprise Way. 26200 Enterprise Way is immediately South and adjacent to The Meadows, a master planned 676 home community, and immediately East of Baker Ranch, a master planned 2300 home residential community. Adjacent Bake Parkway and Lake Forest Road are primary commuter roads leading to dozens of planned residential communities and thousands of North Lake Forest residential homes.

The situation, which will allow residential, commercial and industrial development to reside so closely WILL reduce the quality of life, reduce property values, strain infrastructure resulting in dangerous street congestion, and result in extreme air and noise pollution. These issues are documented in the recent EIR but for some reason the City of Lake Forest continues to host this truly incompatible and unhealthy project.

Currently, the building at 26200 Enterprise is vacant, and despite its vacancy, the primary access roads of Bake Parkway and Lake Forest Drive are regularly backed up with traffic during weekday commuter hours, and the EIR states the subject development stands to add a 24/7 swarm of 18 wheeler big rig trucks to our already at capacity roads surrounding the property. These surrounding roads were not designed to accommodate the volume of automobile and heavy big rig truck traffic this project is projected to add.

Of notable concern: The EIR fails to take into account the approved development of a large Costco warehouse store, also located in Lake Forest, off Bake Parkway, less than 1 mile Northwest from 26200 Enterprise Way! It is reported online that large California Costco Warehouse stores attract 8-12 semi-truck deliveries per day and exceed 5000 car visits per day.

When you add this additional traffic to the current commuter street traffic that exists on Bake Parkway and Lake Forest Parkway, PLUS the added commuter and big rig multi-axle truck traffic for the proposed, expanded manufacturing-industrial site at 26200 Enterprise Way, the result will create an unhealthy, dangerous living, traffic, and environmental situation for Lake Forest residents.

The City of Lake Forest needs to prioritize, represent, and protect constituents first and foremost, and stop minimizing our concerns and the risks this proposed new industrial - manufacturing development imposes. Failure to represent constituents in this situation and ignore the hodgepodge of proposed incompatible, dangerous and unhealthy development will cause danger and harm to City residents, harm to our environment and air, and potential great liability for our City.

I appeal to all Lake Forest city leaders to step up to protect the integrity of our City, and prevent it from becoming South Orange County’s next “Garbage Grove”.

Thank you,
Gail Mona
Lake Forest Resident
P.S. The last thing our City requires is to host industrial -manufacturing facility akin to a GKN Aerospace.

Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
594
From: linda gu-xie
To: Stonich, Amy; EnterpriseProjects
Cc: Ackerman, Gayle; Ackerman, Gayle; Barajas, Francisco; Ludden, Thomas; Grable, Tom; Stannard, Michael; Villwock, Jordan; Voigts, Scott; Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Smith, Amy Subject: Subject: Public Comments on IPT Draft EIR for Proposed Warehouse and Manufacturing Complex in Lake Forest, CA
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:22:02 PM
Dear Ms. Stonich and Members of the Lake Forest Planning Commission and the City Council,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Lake Forest, California ("The Meadows"), to submit public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in which I discovered some troubling claims (yellow highlighted in the passage from the DEIR) that blatantly dismissed valid and widely accepted concern which is scientifically studied in multiple publications from the various government agencies from Federal to the State of California as well as public and private entities regarding the adverse impact of warehouses and their negative impact on the health and wellbeing of people living hear the facilities. "4.3.3.1 Air Pollutants and Health Effects Both State and federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards (California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS] and National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS], respectively) for six criteria air pollutants:1 carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM).

In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants may result in adverse health effects. However, emission thresholds established by an air district are used to manage total regional emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations and could adversely affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants. Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual project emissions, there is no known direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOX) and VOCs. Occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have Item: 9
595
increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. Persons engaged in strenuous outdoor work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality. Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions.

Recreational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise." (IPT DEIR page 4.3-2 to 4.3-3)
Specifically I am deeply concerned with the assertion in the Draft EIR (DEIR) that "Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual project emissions, there is no known direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity." This statement appears unscientific and baseless, as it dismisses the well-documented links between localized emissions from industrial projects like warehouses and adverse health outcomes, particularly for nearby sensitive populations. By framing impacts solely in a regional context, the DEIR overlooks substantial evidence from peer-reviewed studies and regulatory guidance that individual projects can indeed cause measurable, harmful localized pollution, especially when sited near residential areas.

Numerous studies demonstrate direct correlations between warehouse proximity and elevated local pollution levels, leading to health effects like asthma, cardiovascular disease, and premature death (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11269699/). For instance, a nationwide analysis using satellite data found that U.S. warehouses increase local NO2 levels by nearly 20% on average, primarily from diesel trucks, with even higher spikes in disadvantaged communities near facilities like the proposed IPT warehouse (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11269699/). Another study in Southern California, a region with similar air quality challenges to Lake Forest, showed that warehouse expansion correlates with higher ambient PM2.5 and elemental carbon levels, disproportionately affecting nearby residents and contributing to respiratory illnesses (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11410679/). These effects are not merely Item: 9
596
theoretical; a report from the Environmental Defense Fund linked warehouse truck emissions to increased childhood asthma and heart disease risks in communities of color and low-income areas, where pollution burdens are already high (https://environmentalhealth.ucdavis.edu/airpollution/californias-warehouse-boom-raises-health-concerns).

The assertion is further undermined by evidence that even projects emitting below regional thresholds can cause localized "hotspots" of pollution, particularly from diesel particulate matter (DPM) and ultrafine particles not fully captured by basin-wide models. For example, research on warehouse clusters in the Inland Empire (comparable to Lake Forest's proposed developments) revealed significant associations between warehouse activity and elevated air pollution, noise, and traffic-related health issues, including higher rates of asthma and cancer (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692322001636). A NASAfunded study in Los Angeles-area warehouses confirmed that particulate pollution from such facilities is linked to respiratory diseases, cancers, and adverse birth outcomes, with communities within 200–500 feet (like The Meadows and the senior apartments) facing the greatest exposure (https://www.nasa.gov/earth/nasa-funded-study-assesses-pollution-near-losangeles-area-warehouses/). Dismissing these as non-correlated ignores the "conservative nature" of thresholds, which are meant to err on the side of caution precisely because individual projects can contribute to cumulative, localized harms that delay air basin attainment and endanger nearby residents.

Moreover, CEQA explicitly requires EIRs to analyze both regional and localized air quality impacts, including those from single projects, to ensure public disclosure and mitigation (https://www.slc.ca.gov/ceqa/). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guidelines emphasize project-level assessments for localized pollutants, using tools like Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to evaluate risks within the project vicinity (https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds). Similarly, SCAQMD and statewide guidelines mandate that EIRs consider sensitive receptors (e.g., seniors, children) near sources of toxic air contaminants, requiring mitigation if thresholds are exceeded—even for individual projects (https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch2EnvRevThresholds4-25- 2020.pdf). The DEIR's blanket dismissal contradicts this, potentially violating CEQA's requirement for substantial evidence in impact assessments (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2). If a single project like this warehouse can exceed emission thresholds for NO2 or PM, it logically contributes to localized health risks, as evidenced by studies showing 17.9%–20% higher NO2 near warehouses, directly linked to pediatric asthma and premature death (https://www.healio.com/news/allergy-asthma/20240801/warehouses-add-179-more-nitrogendioxide-to-their-communities).

Item: 9
597
In conclusion, the DEIR's assertion is not only baseless but also contrary to scientific consensus and CEQA mandates, which demand rigorous analysis of project-specific, localized effects. By understating these risks, the EIR fails to fulfill its purpose of informing decisionmakers and protecting communities like The Meadows and the senior apartments from foreseeable harms. A revised EIR should incorporate site-specific modeling, health risk assessments, and mitigation measures, such as zero-emission trucks or enhanced buffers, to address these deficiencies.

I hope my concern will receive due attention and further assessment is required to in order to provide a more scientific and balanced view of the matter.

Please confirm the receipt of my comment letter and thanks for your time.

Warm regards,
Linda Gu
mobile
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
598
From: linda gu-xie
To: Stonich, Amy; EnterpriseProjects
Cc: Ackerman, Gayle; Ackerman, Gayle; Barajas, Francisco; Ludden, Thomas; Grable, Tom; Stannard, Michael; Villwock, Jordan; Voigts, Scott; Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Smith, Amy Subject: Formal Public Comment in Opposition to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Approval of the Enterprise Way Industrial Warehouse Projects (IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC & Western Realco Proposals) Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:27:57 PM
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
I am writing to express my profound opposition to the proposed Enterprise Way warehouse developments. This project represents a catastrophic zoning failure and introduces an unacceptable, unmitigated threat to the health, safety, and quality of life of thousands of local residents, including the seniors at the affordable housing complex within The Meadows and families in the Baker Ranch community.

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) fails to adequately address a critical dimension of public safety: a Complete Lack of Tenant Transparency Regarding Hazardous Materials.

A grave, unmitigated flaw in this project is that it is being built speculatively, providing zero transparency or legal assurances regarding who the future tenants will be or what toxic, volatile, or dangerous materials will be handled, stored, or processed on-site.

This lack of foresight is terrifying in light of the May 2026 chemical crisis at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove, right here in Orange County. A single failing valve on a 34,000-gallon industrial tank holding methyl methacrylate triggered an uncontrollable exothermic reaction. This forced the emergency evacuation of nearly 50,000 Orange County residents, displaced families over Memorial Day weekend, and required a massive multi-agency hazmat response.

If a similar chemical stabilization crisis, toxic leak, or explosion hazard occurs at the Enterprise Way facility, thousands of seniors and residents in The Meadows including the affordable senior living apartments and Baker Ranch would have only minutes to evacuate. The FEIR does not account for the logistical impossibility of rapidly evacuating an adjacent, mobility-impaired senior community in the event of an industrial hazmat disaster.

The City cannot safely approve a "blank check" for warehouse operators to store unknown quantities of volatile compounds a few hundred feet from our bedrooms.

Conclusion & Requested Action
The technical and economic benefits claimed by the developers do not outweigh our right to basic environmental safety and physical security. If the Planning Commission approves these projects, it will be willfully prioritizing industrial trucking logistics over human lives.

I strongly urge the Planning Commission to DENY approval of the FEIR and the requested permits until the city imposes a binding legal covenant banning the storage, handling, or processing of any hazardous or volatile chemical substances on the property.

Thank you for your time and your duty to protect the residents of Lake Forest.

Sincerely,
Linda Gu
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do Item: 9
599
not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
600
From: Connie Ding
To: Planning Commission; Mansur, Jennifer; Stonich, Amy Subject: Comments on IPT Project EIR – Noise, Vibration, and Data Transparency Concerns Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:24:08 PM
Attachments: IMG 1357.png
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
My name is Yafeng and I am a resident living near The Meadows.

I am writing to submit my comments regarding the IPT Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and to respectfully request further clarification before any final decision is made.

Before outlining my concerns, I would also like to note that I have reviewed a figure included in the EIR itself. I am attaching or referencing this image for your consideration, as it helped illustrate the project’s scale and its proximity to surrounding residential areas.

My concerns are as follows:

First, the nighttime noise threshold appears to be set exactly at the City’s allowable limit.

The EIR indicates that IPT operations would generate up to 50 decibels at night, which is precisely the maximum permitted standard. This leaves no margin of safety. In real-world conditions, normal operational variability— such as additional truck activity, equipment cycling, or cumulative operational fluctuations—could reasonably result in exceedances.

Environmental analysis should not rely on a perfect ceiling condition. For this reason, I respectfully ask why a safety buffer (for example, 48 decibels at night) is not being considered to ensure compliance under real operating conditions rather than idealized assumptions.

Second, the construction vibration analysis indicates potential exceedances of City thresholds.

The EIR acknowledges that heavy construction equipment such as bulldozers may exceed vibration standards when operating within approximately 8 feet of sensitive receptors. This represents a preventable impact rather than a residual or unavoidable one.

Because vibration impacts can result in permanent structural or property Item: 9
601
damage, I respectfully request consideration of a clearer preventive standard, such as restricting heavy equipment operation within at least 15 feet of residential or sensitive boundaries.

Third, there appears to be insufficient transparency regarding Western Realco’s operational assumptions.

The EIR concludes that even with Western Realco included, nighttime noise levels remain at 50 decibels with no measurable increase. However, Western Realco is described elsewhere as a significantly large, 24-hour operational facility with multiple buildings and approximately 25 loading docks.

Intuitively and operationally, a facility of this scale would be expected to contribute additional nighttime noise. However, I have not been able to locate clear supporting data in the EIR regarding Western Realco’s nighttime operations or baseline noise assumptions. Without this transparency, it is difficult for the public to independently verify the cumulative impact conclusion.

In summary, my requests are simple and focused:

1. Consider introducing a safety buffer below the nighttime noise threshold to ensure real-world compliance.

2. Strengthen preventive measures for construction-related vibration impacts.

3. Provide clear and transparent nighttime operational data and assumptions for Western Realco.

If these issues can be adequately addressed, I would have no further objection. However, if they remain unresolved, I respectfully urge the Commission to withhold approval of the EIR in its current form.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Yafeng Dong
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
602
Item: 9
603
From: Susan Jin
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer; Stannard, Michael; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Grable, Tom Subject: Re: Letter to Planning Commission
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 12:09:29 AM
Attachments: Letter to Planning Commission .pdf
Dear The Commissioners
My name is Shuqin Jin and live at , Lake Forest, CA 92630.

Attached please find the letter regarding the warehouses project near my home.

I strongly urge you to reject the project and protect the residents of Lake Forest.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Shuqin Jin
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Sent from my iPhone
Item: 9
604
Good evening Commissioners,
My name is Susan Jin, and my husband and I are retired residents of Lake Forest.

The warehouses will be built are about 100 feet from the street where we live.

Three years ago, we moved here from the Chicago area to enjoy our retirement. We chose Lake Forest because it is a peaceful residential community with quiet neighborhoods, clean air, and a high quality of life.

I want to begin by saying that I am not against responsible development. However, development should not come at the expense of the health, safety, and quality of life of existing residents.

My first concern is the proposed 24-hour warehouse operation. While the developer states that projected noise levels meet legal standards, that does not change the reality that truck traffic, loading activities, backup alarms, and nighttime operations will affect nearby residents every day and every night.

My second concern is the cumulative impact of multiple industrial projects in this area. Residents are not looking at this project in isolation. We are concerned about the combined effects on traffic, air quality, noise, and public health. Before another project is approved, the community deserves a complete and transparent analysis of those impacts.

Third, I believe traffic impacts are being underestimated. Increased truck activity will place additional burdens on local roads and nearby neighborhoods. Once these impacts occur, residents will be the ones living with the consequences.

Finally, project documents indicate that future uses may include manufacturing, not just warehousing. Today’s decision could allow more intensive industrial activity in the future, creating impacts far beyond what residents are being asked to consider today.

This decision is about more than meeting minimum technical requirements. It is about preserving the character of our community and protecting the quality of life that brought many of us to Lake Forest.

This project, if approved, will affect our community for decades.

Once a warehouse is built, it is there for decades. It is worth taking the time to get this decision right.

Item: 9
605
I respectfully ask the Commission to put the interests of current and future residents first and require a more thorough review before moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Susan Jin
Item: 9
606
From: Meadows
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Do Not Certify the Final EIR or Approve the IPT Business Center Project Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 8:12:20 AM
Dear Chair and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing as President of We the Meadows, a community organization representing many residents of the Meadows and neighboring communities.

On behalf of We the Meadows, I respectfully urge you not to certify the Final EIR and not to approve the IPT Business Center project.

After reviewing the Final EIR and the City's responses to comments submitted by residents, public agencies, community organizations, and our independent experts, we believe three fundamental issues remain unresolved.

First, the Final EIR acknowledges that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts. The City's own analysis concludes that Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas impacts remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. Those impacts have not been eliminated.

Second, the Final EIR does not adequately address the availability of environmentally superior alternatives. The Final EIR itself identifies a Reduced Project Alternative as environmentally superior, yet that alternative was not selected. Our CEQA attorney also identified less intensive alternatives that would be more compatible with the surrounding residential community while reducing environmental impacts.

Third, the Final EIR does not provide sufficient support for a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Under CEQA, a project with significant and unavoidable impacts may only be approved when the benefits clearly outweigh the environmental harm and when no feasible alternatives would substantially reduce those impacts. We do not believe that burden has been met.

Beyond these legal and environmental concerns, this project raises a fundamental compatibility issue. This is a large warehouse and industrial project proposed immediately adjacent to existing homes, families, children, and seniors. The decision before you is not simply about zoning or project objectives. It is about whether industrial warehouse development should be placed so close to established residential neighborhoods.

The Final EIR did not adequately address the concerns raised by residents, public agencies, community organizations, We the Meadows, our independent experts, or our CEQA attorney. Furthermore, the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program remain insufficient to address these unresolved impacts, adequately account for environmentally superior alternatives, or provide sufficient support for a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you not certify the Final EIR and not approve the project.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration.

Item: 9
607
Sincerely,
Harrison Jiang
President, We the Meadows
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
608
From: shaoxia wu
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer; Stannard, Michael; Ludden, Thomas; Grable, Tom; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene Subject: Please Do Not Certify the Final EIR or Approve the IPT Business Center Project Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 8:23:27 AM
Dear Chair and Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of the Meadows community, and I respectfully urge you not to certify the Final EIR and not to approve the IPT Business Center Project.

The Final EIR itself acknowledges that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts, including Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas impacts. These impacts have not been eliminated.

I am also deeply concerned that the Final EIR does not adequately address environmentally superior alternatives or the concerns raised by residents and community members. This project is a large warehouse and industrial development proposed immediately next to existing homes, families, children, and seniors. It is not compatible with a residential neighborhood.

As residents, we should not be forced to live with the noise, truck traffic, air pollution, safety risks, and long-term environmental impacts created by this project.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to reject the project, not certify the Final EIR, and not approve the IPT Business Center Project.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Vivian Wu
Meadows Resident
Item: 9
609
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
610
From: William Wang
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Do Not Certify the Final EIR or Approve the IPT Business Center Project Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 8:58:03 AM
Dear Chair and Planning Commissioners:

I am writing as a resident of Lake Forest and on behalf of my family.

After reviewing the Final EIR and the City's responses to comments submitted by residents, public agencies, community organizations, and our independent experts, I believe that:

First, most opposition is not to the industrial zoning or redevelopment. Our concern is specifically about the warehouse—a large facility with 23 truck loading docks initially and up to 48 in the future. Common sense tells us that injecting dozens of heavy-duty trucks into our community will inevitably increase traffic, noise, light and air pollution.

Residents are not asking for anything extraordinary, they simply want the impacts of surrounding industrial activities to remain at the current level and not become worse.

Second, I believe the warehouse project conflicts with the spirit of the Lake Forest General Plan. Our general Plan explicitly set forth our city’s guiding principles: a strong sense of community, a high quality of life, and a focus on the future. It dictates that any new development must steer our city toward a cleaner, quieter, and healthier tomorrow.

A truck-intensive warehouse does the exact opposite. Some may argue that they can find a few sentences in older documents to justify this project; even if that is true, in public policy, as in law, an action may appear to comply with the literal text of a rule, but still be challenged or rejected because it violates the spirit and purpose behind the rule.

Finally, I respectfully ask the commission to exercise leadership and long-term vision.

Public expectations for clean air, safe neighborhoods, and public health continue to rise. Communities across California are striving to improve environmental quality and protect residents from the impacts of industrial activity. Planning decisions should not be driven by short-term economic gains, they should be evaluated through the lens of future standards.

The decision before you is about more than a warehouse. It is about the direction of Lake Forest and what kind of community we want to leave for our children and future residents.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the commission to reject this proposal.

Thank you
Sincerely
William Wang
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
611
From: Carol
To: Planning Commission
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 9:24:47 AM
Dear Chair and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing as President of we the Meadows.

I respectfully urge you not to certify the Final EIR and not to approve the IPT Business Center project.

Thanks!
Sincerely,
Guifang Wei
President,We the Meadows
6/4/2026
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
612
From: Mansur, Jennifer
To: Weiss, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Concerns Regarding Project Impacts and Request for Enforceable Conditions Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 9:45:52 AM
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of The Meadows community.

The EIR concludes that even the reduced 25 percent alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Despite this, the applicant continues to pursue the original project design. This raises a core concern: if impacts remain significant even after reduction, is this level of industrial activity appropriate so close to existing homes? Second, several regulatory agencies raised technical concerns that were not fully resolved. AQMD identified issues in the air quality modeling, and Caltrans requested additional transportation analysis. These concerns were not fully incorporated into the Final EIR, leaving questions about whether the environmental review is complete and reliable.

Third, the truck trip analysis relies on industry averages rather than enforceable limits. There are no binding caps on total truck trips, peak-hour activity, or nighttime operations. As a result, actual impacts may greatly exceed the EIR’s assumptions.

Fourth, the impact of trucks extends beyond loading docks. Residents will experience ongoing effects including circulation, queuing, idling, backup alarms, forklift activity, and nighttime operations. These are continuous operational impacts affecting daily residential life.

Finally, this project is not isolated. Combined with the nearby West Realco development, cumulative impacts on traffic, air quality, noise, and public Item: 9
613
health will be significantly greater for The Meadows community Approving the project without enforceable limits transfers future risk and uncertainty to residents.

I respectfully request that the Commission consider legally binding conditions, including limits on truck trips, restrictions on nighttime operations, and enforceable operational controls. Without these safeguards, the analysis remains based on assumptions rather than real-world operations.

Thank you.

Yuting Ding
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
614
Item: 9
615
Sam Zakarian
Lake Forest, California
June 1, 2026
City of Lake Forest Planning Commission
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
I am a resident of Lake Forest and am writing to express my support for the proposed redevelopment of the property located at 26200 Enterprise Way.

While I do not live immediately adjacent to the project site, I do live within the City of Lake Forest and have an interest in the long-term success, economic vitality, and thoughtful planning of our community. After reviewing the information available regarding the proposal, I support the redevelopment of this property and believe it represents a positive investment in Lake Forest’s future.

One of the factors that stands out to me is that this project is not proposing to introduce a fundamentally new land use into the area. Rather, it involves the modernization and reinvestment of an existing employment property that has long been designated for business and industrial uses. Maintaining productive employment-generating uses within established business parks is important to preserving a healthy local economy and ensuring that Lake Forest continues to provide opportunities for businesses and workers alike.

I also appreciate the significant private investment being made in the property through updated architecture, landscaping, infrastructure, and site improvements. Reinvestment in aging commercial properties helps strengthen the City’s economic base, supports local jobs, and contributes to the long-term vitality of the community. As someone who values responsible growth, I believe projects that modernize existing commercial sites are generally preferable to allowing important employment properties to remain underutilized.

Based on the information available to the public, this proposal appears to be a thoughtful redevelopment of an existing employment site that will provide economic benefits while remaining consistent with the property’s longstanding planned use. I encourage the Planning Commission to support the project.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Sam Zakarian
Lake Forest Resident
Item: 9
616
Charlene So
Lake Forest, CA 92630
June 1, 2026
City of Lake Forest – Planning Commission
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Subject: Support for Proposed Development at 26200 Enterprise Way To whom it may concern:

I am writing as a Lake Forest resident (located within the near-by Baker Ranch community) and parent to two students at Foothill Ranch Elementary to express my support for the proposed redevelopment of the property at 26200 Enterprise Way.

Like many residents, I care deeply about thoughtful growth in our community and the long-term quality of life for families who live here. After reviewing the information available regarding this project, I believe this proposal represents a reasonable and positive reinvestment within an existing business property that has long been designated for employment-related uses.

What stands out to me is that this is not a proposal to introduce a new land use into an incompatible area, but rather to modernize an existing site within an established business park. I appreciate that the project includes updated architecture, landscaping, sustainability features, and infrastructure improvements that can benefit the surrounding area.

As someone who lives off the Alton corridor, my husband and I did our research and were well aware when purchasing our home that this area includes established business and employment uses that have existed for many years. That context matters to me. While I understand that residents may have differing opinions about future development, I believe it is reasonable to evaluate projects based on their location, surrounding land uses, and the facts presented through the City’s review process. As a parent of school-aged children, I would not support a project that I believed posed unreasonable concerns for our community.

I also appreciate that improvements are proposed at nearby intersections and pedestrian facilities, which I view as meaningful community benefits. Additionally, based on the information made available to the public, the proposed use is anticipated to generate less traffic than the previous office Item: 9
617
City of Lake Forest – Planning Commission
June 1, 2026

Page 2 ends

use at the site. Although these office uses have been vacant for some time, it is not unreasonable to expect that they could have been re-occupied by any office tenant.

I recognize that any project deserves thorough environmental review, and I appreciate that the City is conducting a comprehensive evaluation through the environmental review process. While no development is entirely without impacts, I believe it is important to consider projects in context and based on facts. From what has been presented, this proposal appears to be a thoughtful reuse of an existing employment site that can provide jobs, improvements, and continued investment in our City.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,
Charlene So
Item: 9
618
From: shelly wang
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer; Stannard, Michael; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Grable, Tom Subject: Opposition to Proposed IPT Warehouse Project Adjacent to The Meadows Community Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:28:27 PM
Dear Mayor, Honorable City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, My name is Shelly, and I am a resident of The Meadows community in Lake Forest, California. I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed LPT warehouse project located directly adjacent to our residential neighborhood.

When I first heard the name “Lake Forest,” I was immediately drawn to it. The name itself reflects a sense of peace, nature, and livability. It gave me confidence that this would be a community where families can live safely and comfortably.

When my family decided to relocate in search of a more livable city, we chose Lake Forest without hesitation. Since moving into The Meadows, we have deeply appreciated the quality of life here—the quiet environment, clean surroundings, and friendly neighbors have made this truly feel like home. We are grateful and proud to be residents of this community.

It is precisely because we value and cherish this neighborhood so deeply that I feel compelled to speak out today.

Directly adjacent to our community, an area that has long been quiet office space is now being proposed for development into a large-scale LPT warehouse.

When I first learned about this proposal, I was shocked and deeply concerned. It feels completely inconsistent with the reasons we chose to live here in the first place.

This is especially difficult for me to express, as I am not someone who is comfortable speaking publicly, yet I feel it is necessary to overcome that hesitation to protect the community we call home.

We chose this area because of its residential character, safety, and peaceful environment.

However, if this warehouse is approved, we will be faced with significant and continuous impacts, including heavy truck traffic, noise, artificial lighting, and air pollution—just steps away from our homes.

We are particularly concerned about the proximity of this project to our residential area. It is difficult to imagine how the current sense of peace and safety can be preserved once such an industrial-scale operation begins.

We have also become increasingly concerned about safety risks associated with warehouse operations in Southern California, including widely reported incidents involving warehouse fires and explosions. These concerns have created anxiety among residents and affected our sense of security.

These impacts will not be limited to daytime hours. They will extend into early mornings, evenings, and weekends, affecting children walking to school, families enjoying their neighborhoods, and the overall quality of life we currently enjoy.

Item: 9
619
I am not against development, and I fully understand that cities must grow. However, I do question why such growth must come at the expense of existing residential communities.

Should economic benefit outweigh the health, safety, and well-being of the residents who already live here?
I respectfully ask the Commissioners and Council Members to consider this from a personal perspective. If you or your family lived directly adjacent to this proposed warehouse, would you feel comfortable with large trucks sharing your neighborhood streets, or with potential noise and environmental impacts occurring daily?
Good city planning should not require residents to endure such drastic changes after they have already established their homes and lives in a community.

We believed we were choosing a residential neighborhood, not an extension of industrial logistics.

Today, I am here not only to express opposition, but also to remind you that this decision affects real families—people who have built their lives here, children who are growing up here, and residents who consider this their permanent home.

CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
620
From: Eva
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment on the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:51:40 PM
Dear Members of the Lake Forest City Council,
I am writing as a resident who lives near the proposed IPT Enterprise Business Center project at 26200 Enterprise Way. After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report, I respectfully urge the City Council to deny approval of this project in its current form, as I do not believe the environmental review fully addresses several important impacts on nearby residents.

1. Emergency Response and Hazardous Materials Risk at the Residential Edge One concern that does not appear to have been fully examined is how emergency response and hazardous materials risks would be managed, given the project’s immediate proximity to existing homes and the lack of a defined tenant.

While the EIR generally assumes compliance with applicable fire code and hazardous materials regulations, it is not clear that it evaluates site-specific emergency scenarios that could realistically occur in a facility of this size located less than 100 feet from residential properties.

For example, industrial loading docks and truck operations are typically areas where spills, fires, or equipment-related incidents are most likely to occur. In this case, those areas are located directly adjacent to sensitive receptors, yet the analysis does not appear to assess how quickly emergency response could occur, how evacuation would function in practice, or how residents would be protected in a worst-case scenario, such as a fire or hazardous materials release during active truck loading operations.

In my view, relying primarily on general regulatory compliance does not fully address the real-world risks created by this unusual level of proximity between heavy industrial operations and existing homes.

2. Air Quality Analysis and Modeling Assumptions
The South Coast AQMD has noted that the Draft EIR relies on outdated meteorological data, despite newer datasets becoming available in October 2024. This raises concerns about whether the air quality modeling reflects current conditions.

Because air dispersion modeling is highly sensitive to input assumptions, reliance on outdated data may affect the accuracy of predicted pollutant concentrations and exposure levels. The EIR does not clearly explain why updated data were not used or whether Item: 9
621
sensitivity testing was performed using more recent conditions.

Given these issues, I do not believe the air quality analysis is fully supported as presented.

3. Health Impacts on Closely Adjacent Homes
The project site is located less than 100 feet from existing residences. Many households include family members with asthma and elderly relatives who regularly visit. Like many families in the area, we are concerned about the health effects of increased truck traffic and industrial activity so close to homes.

Diesel truck operations and industrial activity generate nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), PM2.5, and PM10, all of which are associated with adverse health outcomes, particularly for sensitive populations.

The EIR does not appear to include a focused evaluation of long-term exposure impacts for residents living immediately adjacent to the site, despite the unusually close proximity.

4. Traffic, Truck Operations, and Local Safety Conditions The project would significantly increase heavy truck traffic on Bake Parkway, Dimension Drive, and Enterprise Way. While the project identifies the need for roadway improvements at nearby intersections, it is not clear that the analysis fully accounts for day-to-day safety conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and residents in areas where trucks and local traffic would mix.

In my view, the EIR does not fully evaluate operational safety impacts under real-world traffic conditions, particularly given the scale of truck activity proposed.

5. Cumulative Impacts of Nearby Industrial Development
I am also concerned that the cumulative impacts analysis may not fully reflect the combined effects of this project, together with the two proposed Western Realco developments along Enterprise Way. Together, these projects would introduce approximately 400,000 square feet of industrial development in a concentrated area adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

The combined effects on traffic, air quality, noise, and neighborhood character are what residents will actually experience, and I encourage the City to ensure these impacts are fully and transparently evaluated.

For these reasons, I do not believe the environmental review demonstrates that the project’s impacts have been fully analyzed or mitigated. I therefore urge the City Council to deny approval of the IPT Enterprise Business Center project.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully request that these comments be Item: 9
622
included in the official public record.

Sincerely,
Eva Wang
Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
623
From: sharon hu
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Warehouse and Industrial Conversion Project Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:18:50 PM
Please include this email in the public record for the hearing regarding this project.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of Lake Forest and am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed conversion of the vacant commercial building near our residential community into a warehouse and industrial facility.

This project would have significant negative impacts on nearby residents and is not compatible with the residential character of our neighborhood.

My concerns include:
• Increased truck traffic and congestion on local roads. • Air pollution from diesel truck emissions, which could negatively affect the health of residents, especially children and seniors.
• Noise pollution from 24-hour truck operations, loading and unloading activities, and warehouse operations.
• Reduced quality of life for residents who chose to live in a residential community, not next to an industrial facility.
• Potential adverse effects on property values and neighborhood desirability.

The proposed use would fundamentally change the character of the area and place an unfair burden on surrounding residents. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to reject this project and seek development options that are more compatible with the existing residential community.

Thank you for your consideration of the concerns of Lake Forest residents.

Sincerely,
Sharon Hu
Lake Forest Resident
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
624
From: Jianyin Chen
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Oppose IPT Project!!!
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 8:29:40 PM
My name is Jane ZHAN, home owner and resident at , Lake Forest, CA 92630, and I strongly oppose the proposed 26200 Enterprise Way IPT Industrial Project.

This project does not provide any benefits to the local community while the negative environmental impacts remain for decades and generations. I am not sure why the project is even on the table for discussion. It should have been killed in the first place. It appears City Council and the Planning Commission cares more about the tax revenue or possible special interest groups, rather than the concerns of local residents and constituency voters.

I hope that the City Council and the Planning Commission should be focusing on responsible development that improves the community, protects public health, and respects the people who already live and work here — not projects that increase pollution and industrial congestion.

I urge the decision makers to reject the 26200 Enterprise Way IPT Industrial Project.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,
Jane ZHAN
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
625
James Johansen
Lake Forest, California
June 3, 2026
City of Lake Forest Planning Commission
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Re: Support for Proposed Redevelopment of 26200 Enterprise Way Dear Planning Commissioners and City Staff,
I am a resident of Baker Ranch in the City of Lake Forest, and I also work in Lake Forest. I am writing to express my support for the proposed redevelopment of the property located at 26200 Enterprise Way.

As both a resident and someone who works in the City, I care about Lake Forest’s long-term success, economic vitality, and thoughtful planning. I believe this project represents a positive and responsible reinvestment in an existing business and employment area. The property has historically been planned and used for commercial and employment-generating purposes, and this proposal appears to continue that use while modernizing an aging site.

I support projects that improve existing commercial properties, strengthen the City’s economic base, and help keep Lake Forest competitive as a place for businesses to operate and create jobs.

Reinvestment in older employment properties is important because it helps prevent underutilized sites from declining over time and allows the City to benefit from updated architecture, landscaping, infrastructure, and site improvements.

I also appreciate that this proposal does not appear to introduce an incompatible or fundamentally new use into the area. Rather, it appears to be a thoughtful redevelopment of an existing employment property within an established business park. In my view, modernizing existing commercial and industrial areas is a smart way for Lake Forest to grow while preserving the character and economic vitality of the community.

For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission and City staff to support the proposed redevelopment of 26200 Enterprise Way. I believe the project will be a positive investment in Lake Forest’s future and will help strengthen an important employment area within the City.

Item: 9
626
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
James Johansen
Baker Ranch Resident
Lake Forest Resident and Businessperson
Item: 9
627
From: Alex Wang
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer; Fuentes, Jolene; Villwock, Jordan; Stannard, Michael; Grable, Tom; Ludden, Thomas Subject: Re: IPT Industrial Project at 26200 Enterprise Way Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 3:52:23 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
My name is Alex. I am a resident of Lake Forest, and I am writing to strongly oppose the IPT Industrial Project at 26200 Enterprise Way.

I live near this area and have real concerns about what this project would mean for nearby neighborhoods. A project of this size will bring more truck traffic, more noise, more air pollution, and more constant industrial activity close to homes. Those impacts do not stay on the property line. They become part of daily life for the people living next to it.

I also want to speak from personal experience. I have lived with chronic noise pollution for years. What many people describe as an “inconvenience” is very different when it affects your home. It disrupts sleep, affects health, and wears you down over time. Once it becomes part of your environment, it is very difficult to escape.

From a planning standpoint, the Final Environmental Impact Report acknowledges that the project will have significant and unavoidable impacts, including Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas emissions, even after mitigation. These are not small issues, and they are not fully resolved.

The EIR also identifies a Reduced Project Alternative as the more environmentally option. However, that alternative was not chosen. To me, that raises a serious question about whether all feasible options to reduce impacts were fully considered.

Because of this, I do not believe the findings required for a Statement of Overriding Considerations are adequately supported. CEQA requires that the benefits of a project clearly outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts, and that no feasible alternative would reduce those impacts further. I do not believe that standard has been met here.

The project itself also confirms increased truck activity, including roadway and intersection improvements designed to handle large truck movements. That means more heavy vehicles on local streets, more congestion, more noise, and more safety concerns for residents.

Item: 9
628
We have also seen in Orange County how quickly industrial situations can affect surrounding communities. The recent emergency in Garden Grove, which led to largescale evacuations, is a reminder that industrial impacts are not always contained to a single site.

At the end of the day, this is a compatibility issue. A large industrial warehouse next to established residential neighborhoods will permanently change the character of the surrounding area.

For developers, this is an investment. For those of us who live here, it is our home.

We are the ones who will live with the traffic, the noise, and the long-term impacts of this decision.

Based on the evidence and observations, I respectfully ask the Commission to reject the Statement of Overriding Considerations, deny certification of the Environmental Impact Report, and deny Site Development Permit.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the residents of Lake Forest.

Sincerely,
Alex Wang
Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
629
From: Tim L
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Mansur, Jennifer; Fuentes, Jolene; Villwock, Jordan; Stannard, Michael; Grable, Tom; Ludden, Thomas Subject: Re: IPT Industrial Project at 26200 Enterprise Way Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:59:58 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am a resident of Lake Forest, and I am writing to oppose the proposed IPT Industrial Project at 26200 Enterprise Way.

I understand that industrial development is part of a city’s economic planning. However, not every site is appropriate for large-scale warehouse expansion, especially when it is located so close to established residential zone.

This project would bring a significant increase in warehouse activity close to existing neighborhoods. That means more truck traffic on local roads, more noise throughout the day, and more air pollution in the surrounding area. These are the kinds of impacts that don’t stay contained within a project site—they spill into daily life for nearby residents.

Even beyond traffic, noise and pollution concerns, there is a question of long-term planning consistency. The City must consider whether continued industrial intensification right next to homes aligns with the vision of Lake Forest as a high-quality residential community. Once large-scale warehouse uses are established, they are difficult to reverse and tend to set a precedent for further similar development. When more warehouse projects are approved near residential areas, it slowly changes what those neighborhoods feel like. It doesn’t happen all at once, but over time the area becomes less residential and more industrial in character.

That kind of change matters. People choose to live in Lake Forest because it is primarily a residential community. If that balance shifts too far, it affects how livable the city feels, and it can also affect property values across surrounding neighborhoods, not just the homes directly next to the project.

The project materials themselves acknowledge that truck traffic will increase, and that roadway improvements are needed to handle larger vehicles. That alone suggests this is not a small change, but a permanent increase in industrial activity in the area.

I don’t think the question is whether development should happen, but whether this is the right location for it, given how close it is to homes.

I respectfully ask the Commission to deny approval of the Site Development Permit for this project.

Sincerely,
Item: 9
630
Timothy Liu
Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
631
Attachment 5
Item: 9
632

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS

EMERYVILLE
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92602 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 3, 2026
TO: Amy Stonich, City of Lake Forest
FROM: Laurel Huntzinger, Project Manager and Pam Reading, Principal in Charge SUBJECT: IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project: Memorandum of Responses to Late Comments
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project (Project) was circulated for public review for 67 days, from July 10, 2025, to September 15, 2025. A total of 122 comment letters were received during the public review period or immediately thereafter. The Final EIR includes comprehensive responses to each of these 122 comment letters.

As of June 3, 2026 at 12:00 p.m., the City received an additional 34 public comment letters following notification of the Lake Forest Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for June 4, 2026. A majority of these letters were submitted by individuals who had already submitted one or more comments during the original review period. Furthermore, the issues and topics raised in these additional letters have already been addressed in the Final EIR. A summary of the major issues raised in the most recent comments letters is provided below, along with references to the corresponding responses in the Final EIR and Draft EIR that address these topics in detail. • Multiple comments raise questions about the operational assumptions associated with the proposed Project (e.g. hours of operation, limits on number of truck trips, loading dock activity, etc.).

Final EIR Master Response 11 provides a comprehensive response relative to the following issues raised during public review of the Draft EIR:

1. Project-specific noise and vibration impacts;

2. Cumulative noise and vibration impacts;

3. Daily and nighttime operational noise;

4. Requested construction noise reduction measures;
Item: 9
633
2 5. Requested operational noise reduction measures; and

6. Potential noise related health effects.

As stated in Master Response 11.C, (see Final EIR, page 48), it was conservatively assumed that the proposed Project would have the potential to operate during the more-sensitive nighttime hours as a worst-case scenario.

The evaluation of noise and vibration impacts was prepared in conformance with appropriate standards, utilizing procedures and methodologies in the City of Lake Forest Public Safety Element, Municipal Code, and CEQA Significance Thresholds Guide. The existing residential use located approximately 82 feet (ft) east of the project site boundary to the building’s façade was identified as the nearest noise-sensitive receptor. (see Draft EIR, page 4.13-4) The operational noise analysis identified a series of assumptions for on-site noise generating activities. (see Draft EIR, Appendix H, pages 31-32). These assumptions are based either on equipment specifications, past experience conducting analyses for similar projects, and/or project specific operational data; therefore, they represent a realistic approximation of the operational characteristics of the proposed Project. These assumptions include:

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment
The proposed Project is assumed to have four (4) rooftop HVAC units and to operate 24 hours per day. Based on the manufacturer’s specifications (Trane, n.d.), the HVAC equipment could operate 24 hours per day and would generate sound power level (Lw) of up to 87 dBA Lw or 72 dBA Leq at 5 ft.

Parking Lot Activities
Parking lot activities are expected to result in maximum noise levels of 83.4 dBA Lmax at a distance of 5 ft. The activities are based on data gathered during car doors opening and closing as well as engine noise of vehicles during parking. Noise impacts are expected to occur for a period of 5 minutes or less in a given hour. Parking lot activities are expected to operate during daytime and nighttime hours.

Trash Bin Emptying Activities
The proposed Project site plan identifies two trash dumpsters. The trash emptying activities would take place for a period of less than 1 minute and would generate a sound power level of up to 118.6 dBA Lw or a sound pressure level of 84 dBA Leq at 50 ft, based on reference information within SoundPLAN.

Truck Arrival and Departure Activities
Noise levels taken by LSA for trucks arriving and departing for a similar type of project (Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center [LSA 2016]) generated a Item: 9
634
3 noise level of 76.3 dBA L8 at 20 ft. The similar project also included daily heavy truck deliveries and loading activities. Both are industrial type uses, therefore, noise levels generated by delivery trucks arriving and departing for the proposed Project are also assumed to be 76.3 dBA L8 at 20 ft.

Delivery trucks would arrive on site and maneuver their trailers so that trailers would be parked within the loading docks or at adjacent parking spots. During this process, noise levels are associated with the truck engine noise, air brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the dock.

These noise levels would occur for a short period of time (less than 5 minutes). Consistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis for the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC (see Draft EIR, Appendix J, Table C), it is assumed that 15 truck arrivals and departure activities could occur during any daytime peak hour and that 4 truck arrivals and departures could occur during any nighttime off-peak hour.

Truck Loading and Unloading Activities
Noise levels taken by LSA for delivery trucks being loaded and unloaded for a similar type of project (Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center [LSA 2016]), generated a noise level of 75 dBA Leq at 20 ft. Noise levels generated by delivery trucks being loaded and unloaded for the proposed Project are also assumed to be 75 dBA Leq at 20 ft because they are similar types of projects. Based on prior analysis experience, it is reasonable to assume that unloading activities could occur at half of the total docks (12 docks) simultaneously for a period of 20 minutes in a given hour.

As detailed in Tables O and P in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (see Draft EIR, Appendix H, page 32), the hourly noise levels associated with the proposed on-site HVAC equipment, trash bin emptying activities, parking lot activities, and truck deliveries and loading and unloading activities were modeled at the surrounding sensitive receptors to range from 50.0 dBA Leq to 52.7 dBA Leq.

These levels would be below the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards. (see Final EIR, Master Response 11.A, pages 45-46)
Trip Generation
Trip generation is the process of estimating the number of vehicles that would likely access the project site. (see Draft EIR, page 4.17-17). As stated in Response to Comment O-1-17 (see Final EIR, page 130), the trip generation rates were derived from data presented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), which is an accepted industry standard used by traffic engineering professionals. ITE rates for Land Use Code 140 (Manufacturing), Land Use Code 150 (Warehousing), and Land Use Code 710 (General Office Building) were utilized to develop the proposed Project’s trip generation. Based on these rates, the proposed Project was estimated to generate 727 daily trips, including 94 trips (70 inbound and 24 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 99 trips (31 inbound and 68 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour in passenger car equivalents (PCEs) (see Draft EIR, Appendix J, Table C). As the buildings on-site are currently unoccupied, no trip reductions for the previous uses on site were applied. The methodology and analyses included in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), including the trip generation, was prepared by professional transportation engineers, and reviewed Item: 9
635
4 and approved by City engineering staff; thereby ensuring the analyses accurately represent project conditions and fully satisfied the requirements detailed in the City’s traffic study guidelines. • Multiple comments raised public safety and hazardous material concerns due to the recent Garden Grove chemical leak and Ontario warehouse fire incidents. Comments raised issues regarding fire risk, hazardous material storage/handling, emergency access and evacuation, and the potential impact an industrial accident could have on adjacent residents.

Hazardous Material Usage
While references to past fire and hazardous material incidents have been raised, it is speculative to assume that such incidents would result from implementation of the proposed Project. There is no reasonably foreseeable certainty or substantiated evidence that the site conditions, and/or the physical or human factors that lead to or resulted from the referenced incidents, are likely to occur on-site.

Master Response 3 (see Final EIR, page 13) provides a discussion regarding speculation relative to the analysis contained in an EIR. As stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)(3), “An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the Project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.” It would be speculative to consider the type, extent, or nature of a hazardous materials incident as this occurrence would be unlikely given regulatory requirements established to avoid such incidents. It cannot be accurately predicted if or how such events would occur, whether individually or in tandem with other hazardous material release events.

As detailed in Section 4.9 (see Draft EIR pages 4.9-10 through 4.9-12), future activities at the project site, including both construction and operation, would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulatory programs for hazardous materials including compliance with the U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT) hazardous materials regulations; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and applicable CalEPA, Cal/OSHA, and Orange County Health Care Agency Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) requirements. Additionally, any business that handles hazardous materials in the State is required to prepare and maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP must be submitted to the local CUPA and the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS). Information required in a HMBP includes an inventory of hazardous materials, emergency response procedures, and employee training programs. Facilities handling larger quantities of regulated substances would also be required to prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) under the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program. These programs would ensure that appropriate emergency response, storage, and safety measures are in place prior to project occupancy. (see Final EIR, Master Response 13, pages 53-55 and Final EIR, Response to Comment O-1-10, pages 120 to 123).

Evacuation
Final EIR Master Response 8 (see Final EIR, pages 30 to 36) provides a comprehensive response relative to the following issues raised during public review of the Draft EIR:

Item: 9
636
5 1) Roadway congestion impacts;
2) Truck Impact and Safety Concerns;
3) Cumulative impacts related to Traffic and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); and 4) VMT Impact Mitigation.

Project truck trips may utilize Interstate 5 (I-5), Interstate 405 (I-405), State Route 241 (SR-241), Bake Parkway, Lake Forest Drive, Dimension Drive, and Commercentre Drive, like other trucks currently traversing these highways and roadways. These roadways are considered acceptable designated routes for truck traffic and the roadway speed, widths, signalization, and sight distance have been designed for these vehicles. In accordance with the California Fire Code, the project applicant is required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to maintain appropriate emergency/evacuation access to and from the project site. The proposed Project would not add truck trips to any truck prohibited roads or add truck trips to minor roads primarily serving the neighborhoods nearby the Project site. (see Final EIR, Master Response 8.B, pages 31 and 32)
The TIA prepared for the proposed Project concluded that the proposed Project would not result in substantial traffic queuing along Enterprise Way or Dimension Drive, which are anticipated to be used for evacuation of the Project site and adjacent land uses. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed Project would not substantially inhibit evacuation procedures from the Project site or adjacent land uses, including the Meadows community. (see Final EIR, Response to Comment I-21-68, page 869)
As stated on page 4.20-9 of the Draft EIR, the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element does not officially designate any specific evacuation routes within the City. In the event an evacuation of all or part of the City occurs during operation of the proposed Project, the City would implement procedures contained in the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to notify residents and business owners of evacuation orders in affected areas and law enforcement would identify the appropriate routes and assist employees and residents leaving the City in accordance with the City’s recently adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). (see Final EIR, Response to Comment O-1-10 page 121)
Fire Service
Fire access would be accommodated by the proposed Project’s vehicle access and circulation design.

Per Lake Forest Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, California Fire Code, Section 903.2, an automatic sprinkler system would be installed throughout the proposed structures on the Project site. The proposed Project also includes the installation of seven fire hydrants on site. Four of these fire hydrants would replace existing fire hydrants that are being relocated on the site.

The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire protection and emergency services throughout Lake Forest. OCFA requires all developers to enter into a secured fire protection agreement with OCFA Item: 9
637
6 to ensure the availability of adequate fire protection services. The agreements specify a developer’s pro-rata fair-share funding for capital improvements necessary to establish and maintain adequate fire protection facilities, equipment, and personnel. (see Draft EIR, page 3-17) The proposed Project would be required to comply with all OCFA access requirements and California Fire Code requirements. Therefore, OCFA and California Fire Code requirements would address issues associated with fire protection, emergency services, and evacuation. (see Draft EIR, page 4.15-12) • Multiple commentors objected to the rejection of the environmentally superior alternative due to economic infeasibility and stated a preference that the Planning Commission approve a reduced project alternative.

Final EIR Master Response 5 (see Final EIR, pages 18 to 23) provides a comprehensive response relative to the assessment of project alternatives. Final EIR Master Response 2, page 12) states that an EIR is an informational document that serves to inform decision makers and the public about a project’s potential environmental impacts. The determination that significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the project does not make an EIR invalid.

As detailed in Master Response 10 (see Final EIR, pages 42 to 43), in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15043, a public agency can approve a project even though a project would cause a significant impact on the environment provided there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant impact, and specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding the significant environmental impacts of the project. In such instances, the lead agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. Those reasons are presented in the statement of overriding considerations and are supported by substantial evidence. As required under CEQA, the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project Findings have been prepared for the proposed Project.

Section 9 of the Findings provide a comprehensive evaluation of each alternative, its attainment of project objectives, the comparative merits of each alternative, and on the basis of said information, the City’s finding relative to each alternative.

In its exercise of independent and objective judgement, the Planning Commission will make a decision whether to approve or disapprove the proposed Project or approve a project alternative based on the totality of information contained in the Final EIR (which includes the sum of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, technical evaluations and investigations, public comment and response, and other relevant project data contained in the Administrative Record). • Multiple commentors stated that the recommendations in the Attorney General’s comment letter in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) should be considered and evaluated in the Draft EIR.

The City acknowledged receipt of the California Attorney General’s NOP comment letter dated April 5, 2024, which generally identified that air quality (nitrogen oxide and diesel particulate matter) and health risks, noise from 24/7 operations, and increased traffic and resultant conditions may result from development of logistic uses. The Attorney General’s NOP comment letter further stated Item: 9
638
7 avoidance of land use conflicts between warehouse uses and sensitive receptors should be prioritized. The Attorney General’s NOP comment letter included a 13-page information piece titled Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Warehouse Projects: Best Practices) that provides guidance that is intended to “help lead agencies pursue CEQA compliance and promote environmentally-just development as they confront warehouse project proposals.” A copy of the Attorney General’s NOP comment letter is included in the project’s Scoping Summary Report (page 5) which was provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

As stated in the Response to Comment S-2-7 (see Final EIR, pages 73-74) the guidance provided in Warehouse Projects: Best Practices does not relieve Lead Agencies from conducting project specific impact analyses and evaluating feasible mitigation; therefore, the Draft EIR relied on detailed technical evaluation drafted by professional technical specialists. The Attorney General’s concerns are addressed in the project-specific and cumulative analyses of air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risks (see Draft EIR, Appendix C), noise and vibration (see Draft EIR, Appendix H), and transportation/VMT (see Draft EIR, Appendix J). These studies were prepared to support projectspecific impact determinations and the development of appropriate and feasible mitigation for impacts exceeding established thresholds. The methodology and modeling data used in the development of these technical studies was included in each technical report and provided in full in the Draft EIR available for review during the public comment period.

Master Responses provided in the Final EIR address the following issues raised in the Attorney General’s NOP comment letter as follows:
• Master Response 7: Zoning and Land Use Compatibility (see Final EIR, pages 27 to 29); • Master Response 8: Transportation Analysis (see Final EIR, pages 30 to 36), specifically addressing roadway congestion, truck impact and safety concerns, cumulative impact on traffic and VMT, and VMT impact mitigation;
• Master Response 9: Health Risk Assessment and Sensitive Receptors (see Final EIR, pages 37 to 39);
• Master Response 11: Noise and Vibration Analysis (see Final EIR, pages 44 to 49), specifically addressing project-specific noise and vibration impacts, cumulative noise and vibration impacts, daily and nighttime operational noise; construction and operational noise reduction measures; and potential noise-related health effects.

Comments provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District relative to air quality are provided in Response to Comments S-2-1 through S-2-10 (see Final EIR, pages 71 to 76).

The proposed Project satisfies a number of suggested best practices for warehouse siting, including provision of a landscape buffer between existing residences and the project site, orientating the building so that loading areas face away from residential areas, providing truck movement features sufficient to prevent queuing on local streets, and provision of a screening wall along the eastern end of the loading docks. Additionally, as suggested by the Warehouse Projects: Best Practices, the greenhouse gas, and health risk assessment impacts utilized the anticipated truck volumes and Item: 9
639
8 movements. The referenced Master Response 7 (see Final EIR, pages 27 through 29) and Individual Responses comprehensively address potential zoning and land use compatibility issues and the general traffic, air quality, health risk, and noise concerns raised in the Attorney General’s NOP comment letter. The responses to public comments provided in the Final EIR are based on the facts and substantial evidence included in the cited technical studies. As detailed in Master Response 4 (see Final EIR, page 15), based on the substantial evidence provided in the record, if an impact is less than significant, either with or without mitigation, an agency is not required to mitigate the impact further, even though some level of adverse environmental change will occur (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4).

As appropriate, response to individual comments such as the Response to Comment O-6-8 (see Final EIR, pages 388 and 389), Response to Comment I-23-2 (see Final EIR, page 922), and Response to Comment I-25-1 (see Final EIR, page 937) reference the appropriate Master Responses to address issues raised in the Attorney General’s NOP comment letter. • Multiple commentors stated compliance with “plans” and regulatory compliance/response procedures are not the same as identifying impacts and do not eliminate risks (e.g., fire plan, truck routing plan, hazmat plan).

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(1)(B) states in part: Compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the specified performance standards.

Master Response 13 (see Final EIR, pages 53 to 55) provides a comprehensive summary of the required programs, procedures, and regulations that would govern the use, storage, and/or transport of hazardous materials. As the tenant of the proposed Project is identified, as appropriate, these procedures, programs, and regulations would apply to and be fully enforceable on any use to address predictable risks. It is reasonable to anticipate that the operation of any subsequent use would comply with these procedures, programs, and regulations as a condition of initial and continued operation.

It is speculative to assume operation of the proposed Project would result in the hazards identified by the commenters. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[b) states the determination of significance of an effect on the environment must be “…based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. ‘Substantial evidence’ includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible does not constitute substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[a]). Master Response 3 (see Final EIR, page 13) provides a discussion regarding speculation relative to the analysis contained in an EIR. • Commenters stated developer’s response to residents’ concerns that truck routes entering and exiting the project site may be less than 100 feet from residences was insufficient, stating that Item: 9
640
9 the response provided addressed only the location of the loading docks (200 feet away from residences), which doesn’t fully respond to concerns about the proximity of truck routes to residences, which is allegedly 100 feet.

As stated in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, and depicted in Figures 3.2 (Project Location) (see Draft EIR, page 3-6) and 3.4 (Conceptual Site Plan) (see Draft EIR, page 3-12), the dock doors would be oriented southeast, away from residential properties, and located more than 300 feet from the nearest residence (see attached Project Location exhibit). Access to the proposed Project would continue to be provided via two existing driveways along Enterprise Way at the northern boundary of the site. The loading docks would be located on the southwest side of the proposed building and could be accessed from both the west and east sides of the building (see Draft EIR, page 3-17).

Delivery trucks would arrive on site and maneuver their trailers so that trailers are parked within the loading docks or at adjacent parking spots. Noise levels generated by delivery trucks arriving to and departing from the proposed project are assumed to be 76.3 dBA L8 at 20 ft. The noise associated with these movements include truck engine noise, air brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the dock. These noise levels would occur for a short period of time (less than 5 minutes) (see Draft EIR, Appendix H, page 31). At a distance of 50 ft, noise generated from a heavy truck movement (pass-by) to the loadings dock during the day (15 trucks per hour) would generate a noise level of 61 dBA; while similar travel (4 trucks per hour) would generate a noise level of 55 dBA at night.
1 Generally, a doubling of distance reduces noise by 6 dBA; therefore, peak noise levels would be 55 dBA and 49 dBA at 100 feet from the nearby residences during daytime and nighttime hours, respectively. Additionally, the presence of an intervening solid wall at the property line between the truck access drive and the residences would further reduce noise levels from truck pass-by movement to below established daytime and nighttime standards.

To provide for a conservative analysis, the noise modeling assumed that operations would occur equally during all hours of the day and that half of the loading docks at the proposed building would be active at all times and that within any given peak hour, 15 heavy trucks would maneuver to park near or back into one of the proposed loading docks. As detailed in Tables O and P in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (see Draft EIR, Appendix H, page 32), the combined hourly noise levels at the surrounding sensitive receptors associated with the proposed on-site HVAC equipment, trash bin emptying activities, parking lot activities, truck deliveries and loading and unloading activities range from 50.0 dBA Leq to 52.7 dBA Leq. These levels would be below the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards. (see Final EIR, Master Response 11.A, pages 45 to 46) The Draft EIR's analysis accurately reflects the Project's design and its distance from nearby residences, as is proposed in the Project application. (see Final EIR, page 111.) It is also important to note that truck traffic associated with the proposed project would be restricted to arterial roadways and truck traffic would not be allowed on residential streets. (see Final EIR, page 28) 1 2024. Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM), User’s Guide (Version 2.5 Addendum, Final Report, April.

Item: 9
641
10 • Commenters expressed concerns that truck idling times were underestimated at 15 minutes, and the idling time assumption should have been 30 minutes instead.

The operational health risk assessment prepared for the proposed Project conservatively assumed 15 minutes of idling per truck per day to estimate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. As noted on page 4.3-38 of the Draft EIR, on-site idling of trucks would be limited by the CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles regulation, which limits idling to 5 minutes or less. In addition, the proposed Project would incorporate anti-idling signage, and on-site queuing would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. This issue was further addressed in Response to Comment S-2-5 (see Final EIR, page 72). Although certain newer trucks (e.g., model year 2008 and newer) equipped with engines meeting the optional low-NOx idle emission standard may be exempt from the 5-minute limit, these vehicles are certified with cleaner engine technology that substantially reduces emissions, including DPM and NOx. Consequently, even where limited longer idling may occur for operational reasons, emissions would be lower than those associated with older diesel engines.

Accordingly, the assumption of 15 minutes of idling per truck per day represents a conservative estimate of potential DPM emissions relative to expected conditions under applicable regulations and project operations. (see Final EIR, page 72)
In addition, this assumption is appropriate for the facility being proposed. The proposed Project includes adequate on-site circulation and loading dock design to prevent extended queuing, and truck movements would be scheduled and managed to avoid overlapping arrivals that could result in prolonged idle periods. Because trucks would pull directly into loading bays upon arrival and would not require extended warm-up or staging, idling durations at this site are not expected to exceed the modeled 15-minute assumption. (see Final EIR, page 72) Furthermore, the operational health risk assessment was prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Finally, if it were conservatively assumed that all operational emissions were due to truck idling (which is not the case, as other emissions occur while trucks move on- and off-site), and truck idling time was doubled, as requested by SCAQMD in Comment S-2-5, the cancer inhalation health risk would be expected to double. As shown in Table

4.3.N on page 4.3-35 of the Draft EIR, the maximum cancer risk is 3.06 in 1 million. Even if this value were doubled to 6.12 in one million, it would still remain below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, the analysis and conclusion presented in the Draft EIR would not change. (see Final EIR, page 72)
Item: 9
642
Item: 9
643
Attachment 6
Item: 9
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
Attachment 7
Item: 9
699
Item: 9
700
Item: 9
701
Item: 9
702
Item: 9
703
Item: 9
704
Item: 9
705
Item: 9
706
Item: 9
707
Item: 9
708
Item: 9
709
Item: 9
710
Item: 9
711
Item: 9
712
Item: 9
713
Item: 9
714
Item: 9
715
Item: 9
716
Item: 9
717
Item: 9
718
Item: 9
719
Item: 9
720
Item: 9
721
Item: 9
722
Item: 9
723
Item: 9
724
Item: 9
725
Item: 9
726
Item: 9
727
Item: 9
728
Item: 9
729
Item: 9
730
Item: 9
731
Item: 9
732
Item: 9
733
Item: 9
734
Item: 9
735
Item: 9
736
Item: 9
737
Item: 9
738
Item: 9
739
Item: 9
740
Item: 9
741
Item: 9
742
Item: 9
743
Item: 9
744
Item: 9
745
Item: 9
746
Item: 9
747
Item: 9
748
Item: 9
749
Item: 9
750
Item: 9
751
Item: 9
752
Item: 9
753
Item: 9
754
Item: 9
755
Item: 9
756
Item: 9
757
Item: 9
758
Item: 9
759
Item: 9
760
Item: 9
761
Item: 9
762
Item: 9
763
Item: 9
764
Item: 9
765
Item: 9
766
Item: 9
767
Item: 9
768
Item: 9
769
Item: 9
770
Item: 9
771
Item: 9
772
Item: 9
773
Item: 9
774
Item: 9
775
Item: 9
776
Item: 9
777
Item: 9
778
Item: 9
779
Item: 9
780
Item: 9
781
Item: 9
782
Item: 9
783
Item: 9
784
Item: 9
785
Item: 9
786
Item: 9
787
Item: 9
788
Item: 9
789
Item: 9
790
Item: 9
791
Item: 9
792
Item: 9
793
Item: 9
794
Item: 9
795
Item: 9
796
Item: 9
797
Item: 9
798
Item: 9
799
Item: 9
800
Item: 9
801
Item: 9
802
Item: 9
803
Item: 9
804
Item: 9
805
Item: 9
806
Item: 9
807
Item: 9
808
Item: 9
809
Item: 9
810
Item: 9
811
Item: 9
812
Item: 9
813
Item: 9
814
Item: 9
815
Item: 9
816
Item: 9
817
Item: 9
818
Item: 9
819
Item: 9
820
Item: 9
821
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2026-09

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06-21-5437 FOR THE

DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
LOCATED AT 26200 ENTERPRISE WAY
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2021, Chris Sanford of IPT Enterprise Business Center, LLC, filed an application for Use Permit 06-21-5437 for the demolition of an existing industrial building and the construction of a new industrial building located at 26200 Enterprise Way (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, Chris Sanford of IPT Enterprise Business Center, LLC, re-filed the application as a Site Development Permit (Site Development Permit 06-21-5437) for the demolition of an existing industrial building and the construction of a new industrial building, with a maximum height of 35 feet, located at 26200 Enterprise Way; and
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Light Industrial in the Pacific Commercentre Planned Community, which requires a Site Development Permit for the development of an industrial building with a maximum height of 35 feet; and
WHEREAS, the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC (Project) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2024030755) has been prepared for the Project and the Planning Commission has adopted environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, certified the Final EIR, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) concurrent with this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City gave notice of the public hearing at which the project would be considered by the Planning Commission by publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation on May 21, 2026, and by posting a notice at City Hall, mailing a notice to owners of property located within 300 feet of the project site, and emailing the interest list for this project on May 21, 2026; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to, Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 and the corresponding Item: 9
822
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

Page 2 ends

Lake Forest City CouncilJuly 7, 2026

Lake Forest City Council
July 7, 2026