AGENDA
LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting of the City Council
Tuesday, July 7, 2026
Closed Session 6:00 p.m.
Public Session 6:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, California NOTICE: Pursuant to Lake Forest Municipal Code Section 2.04.010, Regular Meetings of the City Council are held the First and Third Tuesday of each month at the hour of 5:30 p.m. for Closed Session matters, if required.
The Public Session of the meeting shall commence at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Special Meeting times may be held at a different time and date as listed on the Agenda.
AGENDA DOCUMENT REVIEW:
https://www.lakeforestca.gov/city_government/agendas_and_minutes/index.php and at the City Clerk’s Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, California, on the Friday before the meeting on Tuesday.
AGENDA DESCRIPTION: The Agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a general summary of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The listed Recommended Action represents staff’s recommendation. The City Council may take any action which it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the recommended action.
AGENDA ON SOCIAL MEDIA: This meeting will be streamed through Facebook Live. Comments will not be taken via Facebook Live. The City provides the Facebook Live stream as an additional service to the public.
However, the City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. The City is not responsible for any interrupted service.
SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE MEETING AND PUBLIC COMMENT:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: In addition to attending in person, members of the public may access the meeting live on our website at https://www.lakeforestca.gov/city_government/agendas_and_minutes/index.php.
PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO 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 and will not be read at the meeting. To ensure staff reviews all comments prior to the City Council meeting, please submit email comments no later than 5:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public may provide comments in-person at the meeting and remotely during the meeting. Those wishing to provide comments in-person at the meeting will be asked to submit a request to speak to the City Clerk. To ensure prompt distribution to the City Council, members of the public wishing to provide written materials to the City Council should do so prior to the start of the meeting or as close thereto as possible, as time will not be taken during the public comment period to distribute written materials to the City Council. Those wishing to provide remote public comment during the meeting may do so by visiting publiccomment.lakeforestca.gov or call (949) 776-5172 and enter meeting code 4516.
TRANSLATION SERVICE: Interpreters are available by request to members of the public that prefer to make their public comments in Spanish or Chinese. Requests for a translator need to be received by 8:00 a.m. the July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 1
Monday before the scheduled City Council meeting. Such requests must be received via email at [email protected]
Los intérpretes están disponibles previa solicitud para el público que prefiera hacer sus comentarios públicos en español o chino. Las solicitudes de traductor deben recibirse antes de las 8:00 a. m. del lunes anterior a la reunión programada del Concejo Municipal. Dichas solicitudes deben recibirse por correo electrónico a [email protected]
如果大眾願意用西班牙語或中文發表公開評論，我們可應要求提供口譯服務。需要在預定市議會會議之前的周一上 午 8:00 之前收到翻譯請求。此類請求必須透過電子郵件收到：[email protected] Rúguǒ dàzhòng yuànyì yòng xībānyá yǔ huò zhōngwén fābiǎo gōngkāi pínglùn, wǒmen kě yīng yā oqiú tígōng kǒuyì fúwù. Xūyào zài yùdìng shì yìhuì huìyì zhīqián de zhōuyī shàngwǔ 8:00 Zh īqián shōu dào fānyì qǐngqiú. Cǐ lèi qǐngqiú bìxū tòuguò diànzǐ yóujiàn shōu dào: translat [email protected]
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
Council Members: Mark Tettemer
Scott Voigts
Benjamin Yu
Mayor Pro Tem: Doug Cirbo
Mayor: Robert Pequeño
City Manager: Debra Rose
City Attorney: Matthew E. Richardson
City Clerk: Thy Merritt
CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT:
CLOSED SESSION: At this time, the City Council may recess to Closed Session for conference with Legal Counsel to discuss the items listed below pursuant to Government Code requirements. Any items not concluded by 6:30 p.m. may be continued to the end of the Public Session. At this time, members of the public may address the City Council regarding any items listed on the Closed Session agenda. No action may be taken on items not listed on the agenda unless authorized by law. Comments shall be limited to three minutes per item. Any person wishing to address the City Council on a Closed Session matter in person is requested to complete a "Request to Speak" form available at agenda public review table near the entrance. The completed form is to be submitted to the City Clerk prior to an individual being heard by the City Council. Whenever possible, lengthy testimony should be presented to the City Council in writing (8 copies) and only pertinent points presented orally. Any person wishing to address the City Council on a Closed Session matter remotely is requested to visit publiccomment.lakeforestca.gov or call (949) 776-5172 and enter meeting code 4516.
CLOSED SESSION (Item Nos. 1 – 2)
CLOSED SESSION: At this time, the City Council may recess to Closed Session for conference with Legal Counsel to discuss the items listed below pursuant to Government Code requirements. Any items not concluded by 6:30 p.m. may be continued to the end of the Public Session.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1)
NUMBER OF CASES:1
July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 2
CASE NAME: BRIAN MCMILLAN V. CITY OF LAKE FOREST, ET AL.
USDC CENTRAL DISTRICT CASE NO.: 8:25-CV-00245-SRM (JDEX) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct closed session.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1)
NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CASES:1
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct closed session.
RECESS: City Council will recess to Closed Session for the purpose of conducting regular City business.
RECONVENE: City Council will reconvene to continue regular City business.
PUBLIC SESSION: 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC SESSION: At this time, the City Council will convene to consider public matters. Those wishing to address the City Council in person may submit a completed “Request to Speak” form to the City Clerk prior to City Council action. Those wishing to address the City Council remotely may visit publiccomment.lakeforestca.gov or dial (949) 776-5172 and enter meeting code 4516.
INVOCATION: The Invocation will be provided by a representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country to be led by Brownie Troop #2519.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT: City Attorney will report on Closed Session.
PRESENTATIONS (Item Nos. 3 – 4)
July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 3
PROCLAMATION COMMEMORATING THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Proclamation commemorating the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
4. RECOGNITION OF VOLUNTEERS IN PARKS PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recognize the volunteers who performed quarterly park inspections for the Volunteer in Parks ("VIP") Program for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public can submit an e-comment to [email protected]. E-comments will not be read at the meeting.
Members of the public may also provide comments in-person at the meeting. Those wishing to provide comments in-person at the meeting will be asked to submit a request to speak to the City Clerk. Those wishing to provide comment remotely may visit publiccomment.lakeforestca.gov or dial (949) 776-5172 and enter meeting code 4516.
CONSENT CALENDAR (Item Nos. 5 – 8)
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council, the public, or staff request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
5. MOTION TO WAIVE READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES RECOMMENDED ACTION: Said Ordinances and Resolutions which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.
6. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON JUNE 16, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve as submitted.
7. CONDUIT OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT WITH CITYSIDE NETWORKS,
LLC FOR FIBER OPTIC INSFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 4
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Conduit Occupancy Agreement with Cityside Networks, LLC
8. THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH SOFTCHOICE, INC.
FOR MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 SOFTWARE LICENSES
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement with Softchoice, Inc., for Microsoft Office software licenses. 2.
Authorize the Mayor to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the third amendment with Softchoice, Inc., substantially in the form attached.
PUBLIC HEARING(S) (Item Nos. 9 – 10)
Public Hearings are scheduled for a time certain of 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. City Council, when considering the matter scheduled for hearing, will take the following actions: 1. Open the Public Hearing. 2. Receive staff report. 3. Accept public testimony. 4. City Council comments and questions. 5. Close the Public Hearing and take appropriate action.
9. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06-21-5437 AND CERTIFICATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2024030755) FOR
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 165,803 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT
26200 ENTERPRISE WAY
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CERTIFYING THE
IPT ENTERPRISE BUSINESS CENTER LLC PROJECT FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2024030755), ADOPTING
THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06-21-5437, AND
APPROVING THE PROJECT; 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 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.
July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 5
10. LAKE FOREST MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO GROUP
HOMES, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, AND BOARDING HOUSES RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct first reading of an Ordinance Entitled:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
FOREST, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE LAKE
FOREST MUNICIPAL CODE ALLOWING GROUP HOMES FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE DISABLED; AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE
EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER STATE CEQA GUIDELINES §15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), AND 15061(b)(3).”
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS (Item Nos. 11 – 13)
The following matters are for City Council consideration/discussion/action. Members of the public may have the opportunity to address these items if they wish to do so. Please complete the Request to Speak form and give to the City Clerk, visit publiccomment.lakeforestca.gov, or dial (949) 776-5172 and enter meeting code 4516..
11. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR CAVANAUGH PARK IMPROVEMENTS (25P08)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Award a Professional Consultant Services Agreement to Glenn A. Rick Engineering & Development Company for Design Services of Neighborhood Park Renovations - Cavanaugh Park Improvements (25P08) in the amount of $589,107. 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the award of contract to Glenn A. Rick Engineering & Development Company.
12. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL TERM LIMITS
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Discuss revising the City of Lake Forest’s (“City”) Term Limit Ordinance and potentially: 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
FOREST, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF HOLDING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3,
2026, CALLING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A MEASURE AS REQUIRED
BY PROVISION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND REQUESTING THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL ELECTION WITH
July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 6
THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME
DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE. 3.
Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA, PROPOSING AND
SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, A BALLOT MEASURE
PROPOSING TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE CITY COUNCIL
TERM LIMITS TO TWO TERMS, SUBJECT TO A FOUR-YEAR BREAK IN SERVICE ; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; AND AUTHORIZING AND SETTING DEADLINES
FOR THE FILING OF ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE BALLOT
MEASURE.
13. CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COMMISSIONER COMPENSATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Provide direction regarding a possible increase to City Council compensation, or introduce for first reading an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA, INCREASING COMPENSATION
FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND 2. Provide direction regarding a possible increase to Commissioner compensation, or adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA
REGARDING COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY LAKE FOREST
COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS, AND TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMISSIONERS
AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 7
Council Member Tettemer:
Council Member Voigts:
Council Member Yu:
Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo:
Mayor Pequeño:
July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 8
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
At this time, the City Manager may comment on agenda and non-agenda items; and report on items of interest to the City Council and community.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
At this time, City Council Members may comment on agenda or non-agenda matters. No discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, respond to statements made or questions posed by the public, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. In addition, the City Council may refer to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting or direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. No action may be taken on non-agenda matters unless authorized by law (Government Code Section 54954.2).
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, you should contact the Office of the City Clerk at (949) 461-3400.
Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and agenda back-up materials can be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk on the Friday prior to the City Council meeting. Copies of all Agendas, Staff Reports and Supporting Materials can also be found on the City’s website – https://www.lakeforestca.gov/city_government/agendas_and_minutes/index.php. Agenda and agenda packets, if requested, will be made available in an appropriate alternative format to persons with a disability as required by the Americans With Disabilities Act. Copies of the agenda are provided at no cost and agenda back-up materials are available at the per page copy cost.
The City of Lake Forest mailing address is City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, California.
Phone: (949) 461-3400. FAX (949) 461-3511
CERTIFICATION: I, Thy Merritt, City Clerk of the City of Lake Forest, California, hereby certify that the foregoing agenda was posted for public review at City Hall on July 2, 2026.
Thy Merritt
City Clerk
July 7, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Page 9
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 7/7/2026
DEPARTMENT: Management Services
SUBJECT:
PROCLAMATION COMMEMORATING THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve the Proclamation commemorating the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached Proclamation commemorates the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence (Attachment).
July 4, 2026, marked the official 250th anniversary, or the United States Semiquincentennial, of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States of America. Communities nationwide are engaging in localized celebrations, civic education, and historical reflection to honor this milestone. Formal adoption of this Proclamation connects the City to broader state and national efforts, encouraging residents to reflect on civic values, history, and community growth.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS:
250th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence Proclamation
Initiated By: Victoria Blethen, Recreation Manager
Submitted By: Sean McGovern, Deputy City Manager
Approved By: Debra Rose, City Manager
Item: 3
10 Attachment
Item: 3
11 CITY OF LAKE FOREST PROCLAMATION
250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
WHEREAS, local governments are the bedrock of American democracy, providing 336 million residents with the most accountable, responsive, inclusive, ethical, and transparent government in the world;
WHEREAS, from the nation’s smallest villages to its largest cities, America’s local governments have been essential in transforming the United States of America into the greatest, most influential nation in world history;
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Forest was first incorporated in 1991 and is proudly served today by Mayor Robert Pequeño, Mayor Pro Tem Doug Cirbo, and Council members Mark Tettemer, Scott Voigts, and Benjamin Yu, and a municipal workforce of dedicated public servants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Lake Forest hereby recognizes the Semiquincentennial celebration as an opportunity to educate, preserve and innovate during this milestone anniversary.
That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect at the earliest period allowed by law.
ROBERT PEQUEÑO
Mayor
DOUG CIRBO
Mayor Pro Tem
MARK TETTEMER
Council Member
SCOTT VOIGTS
Council Member
BENJAMIN YU
Council Member
Item: 3
12 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 7/7/2026
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT:
RECOGNITION OF VOLUNTEERS IN PARKS PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Recognize the volunteers who performed quarterly park inspections for the Volunteer in Parks ("VIP") Program for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The VIP Program currently has 19 volunteers inspecting City parks, with some volunteers inspecting more than one park. Each volunteer provides reports via their mobile phones. When a volunteer comes across issues at a park, the volunteers provide photos by email or call staff directly to have the issue(s) addressed. Staff hosted a meeting in February 2026 for the VIPs, wherein staff provided a presentation on parks Capital Improvement Projects and discussed quarterly inspection responses. Attached is the list of VIP Program participants (Attachment 1) for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and a sample certificate (Attachment 2). Staff would like to thank all volunteers for another successful program year.
Staff recommend that the City Council recognize the dedicated volunteers in the VIP Program for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment 1 – 2025-2026 - Volunteers in Parks Participation List
2. Attachment 2 - Sample Certificate
Initiated By: Peggy Samantha, Management Assistant
Submitted By: Michael McConaha, Deputy Director of Maintenance and Facilities
Approved By: Debra Rose, City Manager
Item: 4
13 Attachment 1
Item: 4
14 Volunteers in Parks Participants
2025-2026
David Antenesse
Debbie Antenesse
Derek Barraza
Sean Fletcher
Elizabeth Fogarty
David Frankeny
Dianne Hanks
Loretta Herrin
Rich Hobson
Jean Kulla
Anil Patel
Alan Phillips
Elle Phillips
Mark Ryan
Suzanne Ryan
Sue Rees
Alexsis Veal
Huy Vuong
John Wirth
Item: 4
15 Attachment 2
Item: 4
16 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
THE LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL
HEREBY RECOGNIZES
Participant
Volunteers in Parks Program
2025-2026
The City Council and City of Lake Forest
appreciates your dedication and valuable contribution to the preservation of our parks.
July 7, 2026
________________________
ROBERT PEQUEÑO
MAYOR
________________________
DOUG CIRBO
MAYOR PRO TEM
________________________
MARK TETTEMER
COUNCIL MEMBER
________________________
SCOTT VOIGTS
COUNCIL MEMBER
________________________
BENJAMIN YU
COUNCIL MEMBER
Item: 4
17 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 7/7/2026
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT:
MOTION TO WAIVE READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Said Ordinances and Resolutions which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
California Government Code 36934 allows titles of ordinances and resolutions to be waived.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is minimal fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Submitted By: Thy Merritt, City Clerk
Approved By: Debra Rose, City Manager
14 Item: 5
18 June 16, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 7
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Forest held Tuesday, June 16, 2026, at the Lake Forest City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, California, was called to order at 5:30 p.m. with Council Member Voigts absent.
ROLL CALL: Council Members: Mark Tettemer
Scott Voigts (Absent)
Benjamin Yu
Mayor Pro Tem: Doug Cirbo
Mayor: Robert Pequeño
City Manager: Debra Rose
City Attorney: Matthew E. Richardson
City Clerk: Thy Merritt
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1)
NUMBER OF CASES:1
CASE NAME: BRIAN MCMILLAN V. CITY OF LAKE FOREST, ET AL.
USDC CENTRAL DISTRICT CASE NO.: 8:25-CV-00245-SRM (JDEX) ACTION: Closed session was conducted.
PUBLIC SESSION: 6:30 p.m.
INVOCATION: The Invocation was provided by Pastor Tom Wheeler, Saddleback Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country was led by Scout Troop #628.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT: City Attorney Richardson had no action to report.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mayor Pequeño requested Captain Pultz with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) provide an update on an incident that occurred at Walmart involving e-bikes.
Captain Pultz also shared information on OCSD’s enforcement strategy for fireworks during the 4th of July weekend.
Wendy Rocchio shared her frustration with an ongoing rat infestation and requested the City’s assistance.
Item: 6
19 June 16, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 7 Walter Nobrega expressed his concerns with illegal fireworks, enforcement and safety.
Mark Hermanson shared his views on e-bike enforcement.
Brian McMillan expressed his concerns with the City’s Massage Establishment moratorium.
Sean Fletcher shared information on Clean Lake Forest’s next event.
Randy Johnson thanked Captain Pultz for the update and shared his concerns with illegal fireworks.
Dana Silva had concerns with the plants used for replanting at Portola Hills, Cityside Fiber construction work, e-bikes and panhandling.
CONSENT CALENDAR: (Item Nos. 2 – 15)
MOTION: It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo, seconded by Council Member Yu, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-15. The motion was carried by a vote of 4-0 with Council Member Voigts absent.
2. MOTION TO WAIVE READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ACTION: Said Ordinances and Resolutions which appeared on the public agenda were determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.
3. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON JUNE 2, 2026
ACTION: The minutes were approved as submitted.
4. CERTIFICATION OF WARRANT REGISTER
ACTION: The warrant register in the amount of $6,555,557.88 was approved.
5. RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 3, 2026
ACTION: The City Council adopted the following Resolutions: 1. A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST,
CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026, FOR THE
ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES; 2. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
FOREST, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026, WITH THE
STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT Item: 6
20 June 16, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 7 TO § 10403 OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE; AND 3. A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE’S STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026.
6. ANNUAL RENEWED MEASURE M ("M2") ELIGIBILITY SUBMITTAL TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
ACTION: 1. The Renewed Measure M ("M2") Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2026-27 through 2032-33 was approved. 2. The City Council adopted a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE UPDATE
OF THE LOCAL SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PLAN FOR THE MEASURE M (M2) PROGRAM. 3. The Director of Public Works was authorized to forward all eligibility requirements including the approved Renewed Measure M ("M2") Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program to the Orange County Transportation Authority.
7. PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT CONTRACT AWARDS FOR MUNICIPAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES
ACTION: 1. A Professional Consultant Services Agreement in the amount of $3,000,000 was awarded to Ardurra Group, Inc. ("Ardurra"), of Newport Beach, California, to provide municipal engineering/staff augmentation services. 2. The Mayor was authorized to sign, and the City Clerk to attest to the Professional Consultant Services Agreement with Ardurra for Municipal Engineering Services, substantially in the form attached. 3. A Professional Consultant Services Agreement in the amount of $300,000 was awarded to Onward Engineering ("Onward"), of Anaheim, California, to provide municipal engineering services. 4.
The Mayor was authorized to sign, and the City Clerk to attest the Professional Consultant Services Agreement with Onward for Municipal Engineering Services, substantially in the form attached. 5. A Professional Consultant Services Agreement in the amount of $300,000 was awarded to Transtech Engineers, Inc. ("Transtech"), of Chino, California, to provide municipal engineering services. 6.
The Mayor was authorized to sign, and the City Clerk to attest the Professional Consultant Services Agreement with Transtech for Municipal Engineering Services, substantially in the form attached.
8. ADOPTION OF LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1: THE ROAD
REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
ACTION: 1. Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act Project List forms for Fiscal Year 2026-27 was approved. 2. The City Council adopted a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE LIST OF PROJECTS FOR Item: 6
21 June 16, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 7 FISCAL YEAR 2026/27 FUNDED BY SB1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. 3. The Director of Public Works was authorized to forward the Fiscal Year 2026-27 project list to the California Transportation Commission, as required under Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.
9. FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH FCG CONSULTANTS, INC.
FOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR LAKE FOREST TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PROJECTS
AND ARTERIAL MEDIAN PROJECT
ACTION: 1. The First Amendment to the Professional Consultant Services Agreement with FCG Consultants, Inc. for Contract Administration and Construction Inspection (“CA/CI”) Services for Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Projects and Arterial Median Improvement Project was approved. 2.
The Mayor was authorized to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the First Amendment in the form attached.
10. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN AND PAINT
GRANT PROGRAM CONSULTING SERVICES
ACTION: 1. A Professional Consultant Services Agreement for Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Paint Grant Program Consulting Services in the amount of $110,000 was awarded to GRC Associates, Inc. 2. The Mayor was authorized to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the award of contract to GRC Associates, Inc. substantially in the form attached.
11. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT / WORK ORDER
SOFTWARE AND RELATED SERVICES
ACTION: 1. A Software License and Services Agreement was awarded to Data Transfer Solutions, LLC., in the amount of $322,950. 2. The Mayor was authorized to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the agreement, substantially in the form attached.
12. FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH ABTECH
TECHNOLOGIES FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SERVICES ACTION: 1. The Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with Abtech Technologies for Managed Information Technology Support Services was approved. 2. The Mayor was authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest to the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with Abtech Technologies in the form attached.
13. SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH ABTECH
TECHNOLOGIES FOR BACKUP AND DISASTER RECOVERY SERVICES
Item: 6
22 June 16, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 7 ACTION: 1. The Seventh Amendment to the Agreement with Abtech Technologies, Inc. for backup and disaster recovery services was awarded. 2.
The Mayor was authorized to execute, and the City Clerk to attest, the Seventh Amendment to the Agreement with Abtech Technologies, Inc., substantially in the form attached.
14. CEQA GUIDELINES: UPDATED 2026 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
ACTION: The City Council adopted a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §§ 21000 ET SEQ.)
15. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV)
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT
ACTION: 1. The Professional Services Agreement for Closed-Circuit Television Services in the amount of $165,000 was awarded to Am-Tec Total Security Inc.
2.The Mayor was authorized to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the award of contract to Am-Tec Total Security Inc. substantially in the form attached.
PUBLIC HEARING(S): (Item No. 16)
16. ADOPTION OF A FINAL RESOLUTION ORDERING ABANDONMENT OF THE
PARK DESIGNATION
Mayor Pequeño opened the public hearing. City Manager Rose introduced this item and invited Economic Development/Housing Manager Grijalva to provide a presentation. Brooke Maynard offered public comment and had questions regarding the plan for the site, parking and traffic control. Amanda Sheek offered public comments and shared her concerns with the plan for the site and opposed the resolution. Tom Emick offered public comment and expressed his opposition to the resolution. Jennifer Guy offered public comment and shared her support.
Kenton Boettcher offered public comment and expressed his opposition to the resolution. Council questions were asked and answered. Mayor Pequeño closed the public hearing.
MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Tettemer, seconded by Council Member Yu, to: 1. Find that the proposed action is not a project under CEQA and alternatively exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA, TO ABANDON AND SELL CITY-OWNED
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL PARK ABANDONMENT LAW OF 1939.” The motion was carried by a vote of 4-0 with Council Member Voigts Item: 6
23 June 16, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 7 absent.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: (Item Nos. 17–19
17. POLICIES ON DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE
DURING MEETINGS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SENATE BILL 707
City Manager Rose introduced this item and invited City Clerk Merritt to provide a presentation. Randy Johnson offered public comment and praised Senate Bill 707.
MOTION: It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo, seconded by Council Member Yu to: 1. Adopt the Revised City Council Meeting Management Policy. 2. Adopt the proposed Public Outreach Policy. The motion was carried by a vote of 4-0 with Council Member Voigts absent.
18. EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT City Attorney Richardson provided a presentation on this item. Brian McMillan offered public comment and shared his opposition to the agreement. Mark Hermanson offered public comment and praised City Manager Rose. Randy Johnson offered public comment and shared his opposition to the agreement.
MOTION: It was moved by Mayor Pequeño, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo to: Approve the Eighth Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement and authorized the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the document. The motion was carried by a vote of 3-1-0 with Council Member Tettemer abstaining and Council Member Voigts absent.
19. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY MATTERS
City Manager Rose introduced this item and invited Assistant to the City Manager Ruelas Castellino to provide a presentation. No public comment was offered.
MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Tettemer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo to: Continue to watch the progress of Assembly Bill ("AB") 1795. The motion was carried by a vote of 3-1-0 with Mayor Pequeño voting no and Council Member Voigts absent.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: City Manager Rose had nothing further to report.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Item: 6
24 June 16, 2026 LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 7 Council Member Tettemer: Council Member Tettemer had nothing further to report.
Council Member Yu: Council Member Yu reported on his attendance at the Taste of Lake Forest event, thanked the Chamber of
Commerce and City staff for their hard work. Council
Member Yu requested a call-up of the IPT Enterprise
Business Center LLC Project, there was no second.
Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo: Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo reported on his attendance at the Taste of Lake Forest event. Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo shared
highlights of historical events that occurred in 1776
beginning June 16 through July 4th, in anticipation of the country’s 250th Anniversary.
Mayor Pequeño: Mayor Pequeño reported on his attendance at the Aesthetic Group Gymnastics National Competition, the
Leadership Academy reunion dinner and Taste of Lake
Forest event. He thanked staff, the Chamber of
Commerce and the volunteers for their hard work at the
event and congratulated Lupe’s Mexican Eatery for
winning first place. Mayor Pequeño requested consensus
to add Commissioners to the compensation discussion.
Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo and Council Member Yu provided
consensus. Mayor Pequeno shared highlights of historical events that occurred in 1776 beginning June 16 through
July 4th, in anticipation of the country’s 250th Anniversary.
ADJOURNMENT: The Regular Meeting of the City Council was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: APPROVED:
THY MERRITT ROBERT PEQUEÑO
CITY CLERK MAYOR
Item: 6
25 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 07/07/2026
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT:
CONDUIT OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT WITH CITYSIDE NETWORKS, LLC
FOR FIBER OPTIC INSFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Approve Conduit Occupancy Agreement with Cityside Networks, LLC; and
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign, and the City Clerk to attest to the Agreement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff recommend approval of a Conduit Occupancy Agreement (“proposed Agreement”) with Cityside Networks, LLC ("Cityside") that will allow Cityside to utilize portions of the City of Lake Forest’s (“City”) existing traffic signal interconnect conduit system along Glenn Ranch Road, from Portola Parkway to Saddleback Ranch Road, for installation of fiber optic infrastructure. In exchange, Cityside will construct and dedicate new conduit and fiber optic infrastructure to the City along a portion of Saddleback Ranch Road, from Glenn Ranch Road to Fawn Ridge Road, where traffic signal interconnect facilities do not currently exist.
The proposed Agreement improves connectivity between traffic signal systems, reduces future infrastructure construction costs, minimizes impacts to City streets, and provides annual revenue to offset administrative costs (Attachment).
Staff believe the proposed Agreement represents a cost-effective opportunity to enhance City-owned communications infrastructure while supporting expanded broadband services within the community.
BACKGROUND:
Cityside was established to provide residential and business internet service to compete with other internet providers, such as Cox Communications. The company has been authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission to operate as a utility company, which means the company has a legal right to install facilities in the public right-of-way. Cityside is required to submit construction plans for review and approval and obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department prior to construction of any facility.
Item: 7
26 In comparison to the traditional trenching method used by wet utility agencies, Cityside can use a less invasive installation method via “micro-trenching” due to smaller sizes of conduits. Micro-trenching consists of a narrow and shallow trench with dimensions of approximately 2-inches wide by 16-inches deep. This micro-trenching work will be finished with an 18-inch minimum wide, 2-inch depth asphalt concrete overlay. The City requires Cityside to use the boring method for installation of conduits through the City’s arterial streets. The conduits through arterial streets serve as the “backbone” of their fiber optic system to service the residential areas. At locations where boring has not been feasible due to the ground conditions, an exception has been granted to use the micro-trench method with dimensions of approximately 2-inches wide by 26-inches deep.
DISCUSSION:
Cityside is a California Public Utilities Commission-authorized telecommunications provider that is currently expanding fiber optic internet service throughout the region. As part of its network deployment, Cityside requires a continuous fiber optic backbone along portions of Glenn Ranch Road, and Saddleback Ranch Road.
The City maintains an existing traffic signal interconnect system consisting of conduit, communication facilities, and fiber optic infrastructure throughout portions of the city. Staff have identified an opportunity to leverage Cityside's planned construction activities to expand and improve the City's traffic signal interconnect facilities while minimizing disruption to public roadways.
Under the proposed Agreement, the City would grant Cityside a non-exclusive license to access and utilize designated City-owned conduit and communications facilities identified in Exhibit A of Attachment. The license authorizes Cityside to install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, and remove fiber optic facilities within the City's conduit system, subject to City review and approval requirements.
Cityside remains responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and approvals, and for complying with applicable City standards and specifications.
In consideration of the license, Cityside will construct and dedicate traffic signal interconnect system improvements to the City at no construction cost to the City.
These improvements include:
• Installation of new 2-inch conduit at locations where City conduit infrastructure does not currently exist along Saddleback Ranch Road from Glenn Ranch Road to Fawn Ridge Road; and
Item: 7
27 • Replacement of copper wire with 72-strand single-mode fiber optic cable within the existing conduits that are covered within this proposed Agreement.
The proposed improvements will provide several long-term benefits to the City.
First, the installation of new fiber optic infrastructure will enhance the reliability and capacity of the City's traffic signal communication system. For the City, and at no cost to the City, Cityside will replace existing copper communication wires along Glenn Ranch Road with fiber optic cable, construct new conduit infrastructure, and install new fiber optic cable along Saddleback Ranch Road from Glenn Ranch Road to Fawn Ridge Road. Second, allowing Cityside to utilize existing City conduit reduces the need for additional trenching and directional boring within City streets, thereby minimizing impacts on roadway infrastructure.
The proposed Agreement also establishes cost recovery mechanisms for the City. Cityside will reimburse the City $7,000 for legal and administrative costs associated with negotiating and executing the proposed Agreement and will pay an annual administrative fee of $1,000 throughout the term of the license. The proposed Agreement is for twenty years with two, five-year automatic renewal options.
Staff have determined that the proposed Agreement provides public benefit through the expansion of internet services options, City-owned communications infrastructure, reduced impacts on public roadways, and recovery of City administrative costs. Accordingly, staff recommend approval of the proposed Agreement with Cityside.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As part of the proposed Agreement, Cityside will pay a one-time administrative fee of seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00) for the City to use to cover its legal and other costs in negotiating and entering into this proposed Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of each anniversary of the Commencement Date, Cityside shall pay the City a sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per year for the City’s administrative costs of issuing and maintaining the License.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment - Cityside Proposed Conduit Occupancy Agreement Item: 7
28 Initiated By: Nazila Mokarram, Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer
Submitted By: Douglas Erdman, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Approved By: Debra Rose, City Manager
Item: 7
29 ATTACHMENT
Item: 7
30
CONDUIT OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT
THIS CONDUIT OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the _____ day of ______________ ("Commencement Date"), by and between the City of Lake Forest, California, ("City") and Cityside Networks, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Cityside"). City and Cityside may be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS Cityside is a provider of telecommunications services and a competitive local exchange carrier (“CLEC”) subject to the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) under California Public Utilities Code Sections 216, 233 and/or 234, except to the extent limited by applicable law.
WHEREAS City owns an underground conduit system and associated communications network facilities.
WHEREAS Cityside desires to occupy portions of the City Conduit and Facilities with fiber optic cable and related facilities that will be used to support the provision of telecommunication services.
WHEREAS City is amenable to Cityside's use of certain City Conduit and Facilities subject to conditions set forth herein, including installation of certain improvements.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS.
"Conduit" means a pipe-like structure which may consist of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE), and other materials placed underground to contain Ducts and/or Fiber Optic Cables as part of a communications network. "City Conduit and Facilities" means portions of City-owned Conduit and Facilities for which a license for conduit occupancy is granted to Cityside under this Agreement and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached herein and incorporated by this reference. "Duct" means a single enclosed raceway for Fiber Optic Cable and is sometimes installed in a Conduit. The term Duct may include micro-duct, inner duct, or other industry standard ductlike materials. "Facility" and "Facilities" means the various elements or components of an underground communications network, including without limitation, Conduit, Ducts, Handholes, Manholes, Slack Coils, and other ancillary materials, items, equipment, pull rope, tracer wire, mule tape, buried locate tape, markers and structures (e.g., pedestals and vaults). "Fiber Optic Cable" means fiber optic communications cable.
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 31
"Handhole" or “Pull box” means a structure placed in the ground and accessible from the surface that is used to provide access to Conduits, Ducts, Slack Coils, and/or Fiber Optic Cables for the purpose of installing, operating, maintaining and repairing communications Facilities, and may include vaults and pull boxes of various sizes. "Make Ready Work" means one or more of the following City-approved activities as determined by Cityside: (i) work to obtain a clear path in a City Conduit and Facilities segment, including, if necessary, clearing obstructions in the segment through repairs made by excavation of all or part of a segment or clearing by other means not requiring excavation; (ii) insert Duct in the segment; (iii) add access points (Handholes, Pull boxes, Manholes) to a segment; (iv) place pull rope and mule/buried locate tape in the segment; (v) place tracer wire in a segment; (vi) pull fiber optic cable through the segment; (vii) splice fiber optic cable between segments in an access point, which will require encroachment permits to be obtained as to the extent required pursuant to the Lake Forest Municipal Code (“LFMC”) Chapter 14.08. "Manhole" means a structure large enough to admit a person's entire body through an opening in the roof placed in the ground and accessible from the surface that is used to provide access to Conduits, Ducts and/or Fiber Optic Cables for the purpose of installing, operating, maintaining and repairing communications Facilities.
"Cityside Improvements" is defined in Section 4(a) of this Agreement. "Requirements and Standards" means laws, rules, regulations, codes, ordinances, permit conditions, the National Electric Code, the National Electrical Safety Code, and the Blue Book, that govern, address, or apply-to construction of underground Conduit systems in public rights of way in the City.
"Slack Coils" mean extra fiber optic cable that is coiled up and placed in a Manhole, Pull box or Handhole for future use.
2. CONDUIT LICENSE.
Subject to the terms and conditions herein, City hereby grants to Cityside a non-exclusive, license for the Term of the Agreement, to only access and enter the City Conduit and Facilities identified in Exhibit A (one conduit for each segment unless otherwise noted), attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, in order to place, occupy, operate, repair, replace, restore, protect, maintain, and remove Fiber Optic Cable and related Cityside Facilities. The license includes the right for Cityside to request from the City and create new access points in the City Conduit and Facilities (with the City's prior written consent and approval), and to connect to City Conduit and Facilities. Such access to and use of City Conduit and Facilities by Cityside is contingent upon its obtaining, at its sole expense, all of the certificates, permits, authorizations, and other approvals that may be required by any federal, state, or local authorities, including but not limited to encroachment permits as and to the extent required pursuant to LFMC Chapter 14.08.
a) Inspection/Information/ Availability. Prior to installing Cityside Fiber Optic Cable in the City Conduit and Facilities, Cityside shall inspect that segment of the City Duct system, Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 32
document the condition of the segment in a format agreeable to both Parties, and provide such documentation to the City. Such documentation shall include, for each segment in the licensed City Conduit and Facilities:
(1) the number and diameter of empty conduits between the endpoints; (2) the fill percentages of all conduits (existing and proposed), not to exceed industry standard (for example, National Electric Code, California Electrical Code) conduit fill percentages for fiber optics
(3) confirmation that all empty conduits contain pull ropes; (4) identification of any empty conduits that are not continuous, are obstructed, or are otherwise not usable;
(5) physical labeling of the identified bad conduits at the endpoints; (6) confirmation that the segment includes locate wire; (7) GIS coordinates of all access points;
(8) identification of any abandoned fiber cables; and
(9) updates of Exhibit A.
If Cityside discovers damage to that segment of the City Duct system or that there is no empty conduit in that segment, it shall immediately notify the City of such damage or nonexistence. In the case of damage, Cityside shall install the Cityside Fiber Optic Cable in undamaged conduit, where possible. If no individual conduit is undamaged in a particular segment, but Cityside would still like to utilize such segment, the City shall determine, in its sole discretion, whether it will repair or replace at least one conduit, which shall then be the licensed City Conduit and Facilities for that segment. Cityside shall reimburse City for the costs and expenses to repair any such undamaged segment. Upon the City’s prior written consent, Cityside may repair or replace damaged conduit at Cityside’s sole cost and expense. If no empty conduit is found in the segment, this Agreement shall be amended to delete that segment from Exhibit A.
b) Make-Ready Work. Subject to the requirements and limitations in Section 2(i) of this Agreement, Cityside may, at its sole cost and expense, perform Make Ready Work on City Facilities reasonably necessary to prepare such City Facilities for occupancy by Cityside under this Agreement. Cityside shall obtain an encroachment permit, as necessary, and any other required governmental approvals, and the City shall reasonably cooperate with Cityside with respect to coordinating performance of related Make Ready Work by the City and any other authorized occupants of City Facilities. Cityside shall reimburse the City and any other authorized occupants of City Facilities for make-ready costs incurred by them in performance of Make Ready Work for Cityside's proposed occupancy. All Cityside work shall be promptly undertaken in accordance with all applicable Requirements and Standards.
c) Ownership of Conduit; Abandonment. Except in the event of abandonment as more particularly described herein, no use of the City Conduit and Facilities or the CityDocusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 33
Requested Improvements by Cityside shall vest in Cityside any easement or any ownership interest or other real property right nor shall any easement or any other ownership or other property right in the Cityside's Fiber Optic Cable or Facilities vest in the City or a third party by virtue of the activities contemplated by this Agreement. If City determines that any portion(s) of Cityside’s Fiber Optic Cable or Facilities are, for a period of one-hundred and eighty (180) calendar days or more, either (a) no longer used by Cityside, or (b) not operational, City shall send written notice to Cityside seeking confirmation that such Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities have been abandoned or are not in use. Within sixty (60) days of notice, Cityside shall respond to the notice by confirming Cityside has not abandoned the Fiber Optic Cable or Facilities, or by removing the Fiber Optic Cable or Facilities at its own expense, or, with City’s permission, by abandoning some or all the Fiber Optic Cable or Facilities in place. If Cityside does not respond to the notice within the required period, City may, at its option, proceed with removal at the expense of Cityside, and Cityside shall reimburse City for any and all expenses incurred by City within thirty (30) days after receiving written demand from City, or assume ownership of the pertinent portions of the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities. After such abandonment, Cityside shall have no further rights to the pertinent portions of the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities. If the City chooses to assume ownership, Cityside shall cooperate in good faith to execute any documents necessary to convey title to pertinent portions of the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities to City.
d) Permitting. An encroachment and/or traffic control permit will be required for any temporary lane or sidewalk closure, construction activity or alteration of the City Conduit and Facilities, as and to the extent required pursuant to the LFMC Chapter 14.08. e) Slack Coils. City shall permit Cityside to utilize reasonable amount of space within its Manholes for storage purposes including for Slack Coils. f) As-Builts. Within thirty (30) days following completion of work, Cityside shall provide the City as-built plans or record drawings for any constructed facilities. g) Nonexclusive License. Cityside understands that this Agreement does not provide Cityside exclusive use of the City Conduit and Facilities identified in Exhibit A and that the City shall have the right to permit other providers of communications or other entities to install equipment or devices in or on such City Conduit and Facilities. However, in granting others a similar license for access to and use of such City Conduit and Facilities, the City agrees that it will not make or allow a subsequent change to the Property that materially affects Cityside's ability to use the Cityside Conduit and Facilities, including reducing the capacity of conduit specified for use by Cityside, or that materially interferes with or degrades the services provided by Cityside. Notwithstanding the above, Cityside’s access to and use of such City Conduit and Facilities shall be subordinate to any use which City may conduct during this Agreement, and Cityside shall not cause any unreasonable delay or interference with City’s access to and use of the City Conduit and Facilities.
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 34
h) Workmanlike Standard. Any work performed by Cityside or by its contractors under this Agreement shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner consistent with the standard of care and level of skill presently maintained by the practice of professionals in this locale; in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, in a manner so as not to disturb the occupancy, business or quiet enjoyment of any other tenants or licensees of the Property; and in a manner so as to avoid harm to person(s) or the Cityside Conduit and Facilities.
i) Construction Approval Process. Cityside’s right to install, repair, maintain, and use its Fiber Optic Cable or Facilities is limited and conditioned upon Cityside implementing the protective measures and physical construction standards imposed herein as follows:
1) City reserves the right, and Cityside hereby acknowledges, that City may reject without liability the design drawings for any of Cityside’s proposed construction (including, but not limited to, proposed Make Ready Work and Cityside Improvements) and/or require any changes thereto if City determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that such action is necessary to ensure City can adequately access, use, inspect, clean, maintain, repair, and replace City Conduit and Facilities. 2) Cityside shall install and maintain each of its Fiber Optic Cable or Facilities in strict compliance with its City-approved final design drawings, and no changes or deviations shall be permitted without Cityside first obtaining the prior written consent of City, which may be granted or denied in the City’s sole and absolute discretion.
3) A schedule of construction activities within the City Conduit and Facilities will be provided to and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction work.
4) All construction shall be open and subject to inspection by City, and Cityside shall give notice and allow City to inspect any underground improvements prior to backfilling.
5) This Agreement does not grant permission to Cityside to use or occupy any other City property.
6) Cityside shall not alter, replace, or otherwise change its Fiber Optic Cable or Facilities without complying with the terms of this Section 2 or any rules and policies the City implements.
3. RATES AND CHARGES; BILLING AND PAYMENT
a) Administrative Fee. Within thirty (30) days of the Commencement Date, Cityside shall pay City a sum of Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00) for City to use to cover its legal and other costs in negotiating and entering into this Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of each anniversary of the Commencement Date, Cityside shall pay City a sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per year for the City’s administrative costs of issuing and maintaining the License.
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 35
b) Manner of Payment. The Administrative Fee shall be payable without offset or deduction by check sent to City's address specified below or in any other manner as City may, from time to time, designate in writing at least sixty (60) days in advance of any fee due date. c) Interest. Any amount due from Cityside to the City which is not paid when due shall bear interest at the lesser of ten percent (10%) per annum or the maximum rate which the City is permitted by law to charge, from the date such payment is due until paid, but the payment of such interest alone shall not excuse or cure any default by Cityside under this Agreement.
4. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION
a) Cityside Improvements. Subject to the requirements and limitations in Section 2(i) of this Agreement, Cityside may install Conduit extensions, Handholes, and extension of concrete sidewalk on each side of the City Conduit and Facilities ("Cityside Improvements"). b) City-Requested Improvements. Pursuant to the plans approved and provided by City, Cityside shall install new City 2-inch Conduit with 72 SMFO fiber per City Standards and Specifications at the bottom of Cityside’s microtrench (approximately 24-inches below finished grade) for residential and commuter arterial highways or directional bore for all other arterial highways per the City’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways, provide a sweep into the sidewalk to the existing (or new, depending on location) traffic signal pull box and upgrade the existing pull box to a B40 pull box with 100-feet of fiber coiled in it. Cityside shall install a splice canister in the B40 pull box, splice the 72 SMFO to the new 12 SMFO fiber drop-cable from the traffic signal cabinet that will be connected to the existing fiber switch per City Standards and Specifications. All pavement, sidewalks, and striping restoration shall be performed per City Standards and Specifications. All City-Requested Improvements shall become part of the City Conduit and Facilities and is the property of the City. These improvements shall be performed along the following paths:
1. Glenn Ranch Road/Saddleback Ranch Road (signalized intersection) to Fawn Ridge/Saddleback Ranch Road (signalized intersection); and
2. Portola Parkway/Glenn Ranch Road (signalized intersection) to Glenn Ranch Road/Saddleback Ranch Road (signalized intersection), using the existing conduit. c) Commencement of Construction; Delivery. Cityside will commence installation of Cityside Improvements and City-Requested Improvements within 180 days of issuance of encroachment permit for such improvements and shall complete such improvements no later than the expiration date noted on said encroachment permits. d) Disputes; Late Payment Charges. Each Party shall pay all undisputed amounts when due, and provide a detailed description of any amounts that are in dispute. The Parties shall cooperate in good faith to resolve any billing disputes.
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 36
e) No Accord and Satisfaction. No acceptance of any payment hereunder by either Party shall be deemed to constitute any accord or satisfaction with respect thereto, and each Party reserves all rights with respect to any such matters.
f) Permits and Other Requirements. Cityside shall bear the sole responsibility of obtaining any future and current permits, licenses, qualifications, and approvals necessary for performing any work under this Agreement, and shall bear all costs associated with obtaining and maintaining said permits, licenses, qualifications, and approvals, including but not limited to encroachment permits and inspection fees.
5. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.
a) Cityside shall maintain and repair its Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities at no charge to City and keep them in good working order according to applicable Requirements and Standards.
Cityside shall clearly tag all of its Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities to distinguish its lines from the City’s lines at all pull boxes.
b) Cityside, at its sole cost and expense, shall repair any damage it may cause directly or indirectly to any of its Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities or to City Conduit and Facilities.
Upon City’s request, Cityside shall repair such damage within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice. If Cityside fails to comply with this section, the City may complete or cause to be completed the work, and Cityside shall reimburse the City for such invoiced costs within thirty (30) days of receipt. City Conduit and Facilities must be restored to the same condition that existed prior to the placing of the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
c) In the case of an emergency, City shall have immediate access to the City Conduit and Facilities and may move or restrict Cityside’s Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities (or the appropriate portion thereof) at Cityside’s sole cost and expense, without written or telephonic notice to Cityside or reimbursement to Cityside. Cityside shall reimburse City for any and all expenses incurred by City within thirty (30) days after receiving written demand and a statement from City detailing such emergency-related costs. City shall provide notice of the emergency to Cityside as soon as possible, and upon receipt of such notice Cityside shall immediately cease all further use of its Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities until the emergency has been mitigated.
d) Each Party shall use reasonable commercial efforts to provide at least 48 hours prior written notice of all maintenance and repair activity. Unless such maintenance and repair activities constitute an emergency, said activities must be completed pursuant to an encroachment permit.
e) Emergency repair activity requires notice to the City the day of emergency work, and a permit applied for within five (5) business days.
f) City shall reasonably cooperate with Cityside in good-faith to address any interference or other such issues with City Conduit and Facilities. City shall require all other authorized users of City Conduit and Facilities to comply with all applicable Requirements and Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 37
Standards with respect to their use and occupation of City Conduit and Facilities and to cooperate with Cityside in good-faith to address any interference or other such issues. g) Cityside shall be responsible for all Contractors and all subcontractors engaged to complete any permitted work under this Agreement ("Contractors") and shall be responsible for their conduct and the conduct of their employees, agents and volunteers. Cityside shall ensure that all such Contractors and subcontractors shall be properly licensed and have insurance that meets the insurance and indemnification obligations required of Cityside herein.
6. NETWORK RELOCATION.
a) City may relocate all or any portion of the City Conduit and Facilities used or required in providing Cityside with the rights granted under this Agreement: (1) if a third party with legal authority to do so orders or threatens to order such relocation; (2) if all or any of the City Conduit and Facilities shall be taken for any public or quasi-public purpose by any authority by the exercise of the right of condemnation or eminent domain; (3) in order to comply with applicable laws; (4) to prevent or abate interference with or interruption of conduit owned by City, or any unreasonable risk thereof, due to the existence of physical conditions (e.g., rock slides, seismic conditions); (5) to reduce governmental fees or taxes assessed against City or Cityside, if mutually agreed to by the parties; or (6) if City determines to do so in its reasonable business judgment. b) City shall provide Cityside as much advanced notice as possible but shall use reasonable efforts to provide at least sixty (60) calendar days’ prior notice of any such relocation, if reasonable feasible. City shall have the right to direct such relocation, including the right to determine the extent of, the timing of, and methods to be used for such relocation, provided that any such relocation. The costs of relocation shall be allocated among City and Cityside based on the ratio of the number of relocated conduits to the total number of conduits owned by City. Cityside is not entitled to relocation assistance or any other benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act or any other applicable provision of law during the term of this Agreement or upon termination of this Agreement.
7. TERM AND TERMINATION.
a) The Agreement commences on the Commencement Date and will continue for twenty (20) years, unless amended or earlier terminated at the consent of the Parties ("Initial Term").
Provided Cityside is not in default of this Agreement and neither party has provided written notice to the other of its intention not to renew more than one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for two (2) additional five (5) year terms, immediately following the Initial Term ("Renewal Terms"). The Renewal Terms shall be governed by the same terms and conditions as the Initial Term, unless revisions are mutually agreed to by the Parties in writing. Either party may terminate the Agreement during any Renewal Term by providing Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 38
at least one hundred and eighty (180) days written notice to the other party. b) The Agreement may be terminated, and license revoked, by mutual agreement of the Parties, or for uncured material breach as set forth in this Section, or by Cityside for its convenience upon ninety (90) days' prior written notice to the City. c) In the event that either Party commits a material breach or default under this Agreement, then the other Party shall give the breaching Party written notice of the breach or default (including, but not limited to, a statement of the facts relating to the breach or default, the provisions of the Agreement that are in breach or default, and the action required to cure the breach or default) and indicate in the notice that the Agreement will terminate pursuant to this paragraph if the breach or default is not cured within forty-five (45) days after receipt of notice (or such later date as may be specified in the notice). If the breaching Party fails to cure the specified breach or default within forty-five (45) days after receipt of such notice (or such later date as may be specified in such notice), then the Agreement, as applicable, will terminate without any further notice or action by the terminating Party; provided that if said breach is not susceptible of being cured within said 45-day period, the Agreement not terminate as long as the breaching Party is exercising all commercially reasonable efforts to pursue implementation of a cure.
d) Upon termination as provided herein, or upon the expiration of the Initial Term and any extensions thereof, this Agreement shall forthwith be void, and there shall be no further liability or obligation on the part of either of the Parties or their respective officers, employees, agents or other representatives; provided however, that certain provisions of this Agreement shall survive such termination, as specified herein. Both Parties acknowledge and agree that if telecommunications services are being provided to customers, any termination of this Agreement (whether by mutual consent or due to breach) that would affect or terminate such telecommunications services is subject to regulatory requirements and that they will comply with such regulatory requirements. In the event of abandonment, the City will not be bound to any agreements between Cityside and third parties or affiliates.
e) Within ninety (90) days following the earlier expiration or termination of this Agreement, Cityside, at its own cost and expense, shall remove or, at City’s discretion, abandon in place some or all of its Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities from the City Conduit and Facilities and restore said City Conduit and Facilities. If Cityside fails to abide by this section, City shall have the right to either: 1) remove the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities and restore the City Conduit and Facilities, and Cityside shall reimburse City for any and all expenses incurred by City in completing such within thirty (30) days after receiving written demand and a statement from City; or 2) leave the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities in place and assume ownership of the pertinent portions of the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities. After such abandonment, Cityside shall have no further rights to the pertinent portions of the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities. If the City chooses to assume ownership, Cityside shall Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 39
cooperate in good faith to execute any documents necessary to convey title to pertinent portions of the Fiber Optic Cable and Facilities to City.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY.
a) "Confidential Information" means Cityside materials, Cityside trade secrets, and other Cityside proprietary or business information provided to City that is clearly labeled, marked or otherwise identified as "confidential" or "proprietary information." Confidential Information shall not include information that was in the public domain at the time of disclosure; becomes generally known or available through no act or omission on the part of Cityside; is known, or becomes known, to City from a source other than Cityside or its representatives, provided that disclosure by such source is not in breach of a confidentiality agreement with Cityside; or is independently developed by City without violating any of its obligations under this Agreement.
b) City agrees to only disclose Confidential Information to employees, elected officials, agents and contractors of the City with a need to know the Confidential Information or as otherwise required by code, statue, rule or regulation. c) The Parties understand that the City is a public agency and is subject to the provisions of the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250 et seq., (the "CPRA”).
Consistent with the requirements of the CPRA and any Cityside rights thereunder, the City shall have the sole responsibility and authority to respond to such requests and shall protect confidential information to the extent permitted by law.
9. INDEMNIFICATION; LIABILITY; LIMITED WARRANTY.
a) Cityside shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs and damages (whether in contract, tort or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time and property damage, including damage by fire or other casualty) incurred by City, Cityside, or any other person, and from any and all claims, demands and actions in law or equity (including attorney's fees and litigation expenses), arising or alleged to have arisen directly or indirectly out: (i) any negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of Cityside, its partners, affiliates, officials, officers, employees, agents or contractors in performance of Cityside’s obligations set forth in this Agreement, (ii) Cityside’s use of its Fiber Optic Cables and Facilities, or (iii) Cityside’s use of City Conduit and Facilities. Cityside’s obligations under the preceding sentence shall apply to any negligence of City.
b) Each Party warrants it will comply with all applicable statutes, laws, rules and regulation in the exercise of its rights the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. c) EXCEPT FOR A BREACH OF A PARTY'S CONFIDENTIALITY, NEITHER PARTY
SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER UNDER ANY THEORY FOR ANY
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 40
INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF BUSINESS OR LOSS OF PROFIT. THIS LIMITATION WILL APPLY
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY PROVIDED HEREIN.
d) EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTIES EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT,
THE PARTIES MAKE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW; AND EACH PARTY DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER
WARRANTIES TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY OF INFORMATIONAL CONTENT,
TITLE, AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARISING FROM CUSTOM OR USAGE OF THE TRADE.
10. INSURANCE
a) During the Term of the Agreement, and if extended, Cityside shall maintain in force all insurance as follows:
(1) Not less than $2,000,000 combined single limit liability insurance, on an occurrence basis, for personal injury and property damage, including, without limitation, injury or damage arising from the operation of vehicles or equipment and liability for completed operations, and if a general aggregate limit applies, the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit;
(2) Workers’ compensation insurance in amounts required by applicable law and employers’ liability insurance with a limit of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence per accident for bodily injury or disease. Such insurance shall include an insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City;
(3) Automobile liability insurance covering death or injury to any person or persons, or damage to property arising from the operation of vehicles or equipment, with limits of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence; and
(4) Any other insurance coverages specifically required of such Party pursuant to City’s right-of-way agreements and, or encroachment permits.
11. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
a) The City hereby designates the Director of Public Works, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (“City’s Representative”). City’s Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Contract. Cityside shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than City’s Representative or his or her designee.
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 41
b) Any notice under this Agreement shall be given in writing and directed to the applicable Party below. Notice shall be deemed to have been delivered: (i) on the delivery date if delivered personally; or (ii) one (1) business day after deposit with a commercial overnight carrier. Either Party may from time to time change its address for purposes of this paragraph by giving the other Party notice of the change in accordance with this paragraph.
If to City: City of Lake Forest
Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Dr.,
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Attention: Director of Public Works
With copy to: Traffic Engineering Manager
If to Cityside: Cityside Networks, LLC
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Attention: Legal Department
Invoices to Cityside shall be sent to the following address:
Cityside Networks, LLC
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Attention: Accounts Payable
Email: [email protected]
c) At all times during the Term of this Agreement, Cityside, at its sole expense, shall obtain and keep in force the required insurance as set forth in the attached Exhibit B (Insurance Requirements).
d) Except for disputes involving confidentiality, if a dispute arises between Cityside and City pertaining to this Agreement ("Dispute"), prior to the initiation of legal action and within ten (10) days of receipt of a notice of dispute, representatives of the Parties will promptly meet in an attempt resolve the Dispute. If the Parties are unable to resolve the Dispute after this meeting, then the Parties shall be free to pursue any remedies available to them at law or equity.
e) This Agreement may not be assigned without the written prior consent of the other Party, provided however that either Party may assign this Agreement; to any successor by way of any merger, consolidation or other corporate reorganization of such Party or sale of all or substantially all of the assets of such Party, provided that such subsidiary or parent or successor assumes or is otherwise fully bound by all of the obligations of the assigning party under this Agreement. Cityside shall do no act that would in any way encumber the City’s title to the Conduit or the City Facilities nor permit them to become subject to a lien of any kind.
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 42
f) Neither Party shall be in default by reason of any failure or delay in performance of this Agreement of its terms and conditions, or one or more of its obligations hereunder, and such performance shall be excused and extended for and during the period of any such delay, if such failure arises out of causes beyond the control of the non-performing Party (“Force Majeure”) including, but not restricted to, acts of God or nature, including an earthquake, flood or tornado; acts of governmental authority, government codes, ordinances, actions, laws, rules, regulations or restrictions; insurrections, war or civil disorder; fires, floods, accidents; epidemics, quarantines; restrictions; strikes or other labor disputes; lack of or delay in transportation, freight embargoes, inability to secure raw materials or transportation facilities; acts of omissions of other entities or any and all other causes beyond such Party's reasonable control. Such Party shall notify the other Party in writing of the existence of the event relied on and the cessation or termination of said event of Force Majeure and such Party shall exercise commercially reasonable efforts to minimize the time of any such delay. If an event of Force Majeure continues for more than ninety (90) days, and if the non-affected Party cannot (i) resolve the matter within such time period or (ii) provide the affected Party with an alternative solution to such matter within the same time period, such alternative solution to be substantially similar in effect to the matter affected by the Force Majeure, the affected Party has the right to terminate this Agreement.
g) If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable then such provision will be construed to reflect the intentions of the invalid or unenforceable provision, with all other provisions remaining in full force and effect. h) The failure of either Party to enforce any right or provision in this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of such right or provision unless acknowledged and agreed to in writing by the Party otherwise entitled to exercise or enforce such right or provision. i) This Agreement and any action related thereto shall be governed, controlled, interpreted and defined by and under the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Orange County, California.
j) The Parties may sign this Agreement in counterparts, each of which will be considered an original, but all of which will constitute the same agreement. Facsimile and portable document format (PDF) signatures shall be binding as if original. k) This Agreement is solely for the benefit of City and Cityside including Cityside Affiliates.
It is not intended to benefit any third parties.
l) This Agreement may be amended, or extended, only by mutual written agreement of the Parties.
m) Except as required by law, neither Party shall use the name or logo of the other party in marketing, advertising, promotional materials (e.g., marketing collateral), press releases or other public announcements without receiving the prior written consent of the other Party.
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 43
n) Each Party shall be an independent contractor and not a partner or agent of the other. This Agreement will not be interpreted or construed as creating a joint venture, partnership or agency relationship between the Parties.
o) In any legal proceeding pursuant to this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its costs and attorney fees incurred during such proceeding. p) Nothing contained herein shall preclude Cityside or its Affiliates from pursuing or bidding on any future City procurement opportunity or opportunities, and nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit future Cityside-City bids or business opportunities in any way.
q) Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, each Party will remain solely and independently responsible for its own expenses under or arising from this Agreement. r) This Agreement, including all Exhibits sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements and representations written or oral, of the Parties with respect to the subject matter set forth herein. Additions, variations or modifications to this Agreement may only be made in writing and signed by the Parties.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 44
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the last date of execution below, intending to be legally bound hereby.
CITYSIDE CITYSIDE NETWORKS, LLC,
A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
By: __________________________________
Name: _________________________
Title: __________________________
Date: _________________
By: __________________________________
Name: _________________________
Title: __________________________
Date: _________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 6/29/2026
CEO
Rodman Hanson
7/1/2026
Chief Development Officer
Jonathan Restivo
Item: 7
45
CITY CITY OF LAKE FOREST
A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
By:
Name: _________________
Title: __________________
Date: __________________
ATTEST:
By:
Name: _________________
Title: __________________
Date: __________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Name: _________________
Title: __________________
Date: __________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 City Attorney
6/28/2026
Matthew Richardson
Item: 7
46
EXHIBIT A
Segments of City Conduit and Facilities
Segment
ID Description Endpoint 1 Latitude
Endpoint 1
Longitude
Endpoint 2
Latitude
Endpoint 2
Longitude Length
Number
of
Conduit
Conduit
Diameter
1 Existing City Conduit 33.671757° -117.652363° 33.671684° -117.652266° 37' 1 2" 2 Existing City Conduit 33.671684° -117.652266° 33.671688° -117.651983° 90' 1 2" 3 Existing City Conduit 33.671688° -117.651983° 33.672113° -117.651196° 284' 1 2" 4 Existing City Conduit 33.672113° -117.651196° 33.672697° -117.649645° 515' 1 2" 5 Existing City Conduit 33.672697° -117.649645° 33.672804° -117.649325° 103' 1 2" 6 Existing City Conduit 33.672804° -117.649325° 33.672842° -117.649270° 21' 1 2" 7 Existing City Conduit 33.672842° -117.649270° 33.672989° 117.648885° 128' 1 2" 8 Existing City Conduit 33.672989° 117.648885° 33.673161° -117.648444° 146' 1 2" 9 Existing City Conduit 33.673161° -117.648444° 33.673390° -117.647853° 197' 1 2" 10 Existing City Conduit 33.673390° -117.647853° 33.673606° -117.647239° 204' 1 2" 11 Existing City Conduit 33.673606° -117.647239° 33.673766° -117.646625° 193' 1 2" 12 Existing City Conduit 33.673766° -117.646625° 33.673876° -117.645975° 199' 1 2" 13 Existing City Conduit 33.673876° -117.645975° 33.673932° -117.645324° 198' 1 2" 14 Existing City Conduit 33.673932° -117.645324° 33.673931° -117.644677° 197' 1 2" 15 Existing City Conduit 33.673931° -117.644677° 33.673931° -117.644648° 8' 1 2" 16 Existing City Conduit 33.673931° -117.644648° 33.673918° -117.644306° 104' 1 2" 17 Existing City Conduit 33.673918° -117.644306° 33.673921° -117.644277° 10' 1 2" 18 Existing City Conduit 33.673921° -117.644277° 33.673902° -117.643824° 138' 1 2" 19 Existing City Conduit 33.673902° -117.643824° 33.673887° -117.643362° 140' 1 2" 20 Existing City Conduit 33.673887° -117.643362° 33.673906° -117.643213° 46' 1 2" 21 Existing City Conduit 33.673906° -117.643213° 33.674159° -117.641410° 556' 1 2" 22 Existing City Conduit 33.674159° -117.641410° 33.674363° -117.640226° 366' 1 2" 23 Existing City Conduit 33.674363° -117.640226° 33.674428° -117.639231° 302' 1 2" 24 Existing City Conduit 33.674428° -117.639231° 33.674151° -117.637544° 526' 1 2" 25 Existing City Conduit 33.674151° -117.637544° 33.673927° -117.636873° 223' 1 2" 26 Existing City Conduit 33.673927° -117.636873° 33.673970° -117.363724° 45' 1 2" 27 Existing City Conduit 33.673970° -117.363724° 33.674452° -117.636281° 220' 1 2" Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 47
EXHIBIT A
Segments of City Conduit and Facilities
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 48
EXHIBIT A
Segments of City Conduit and Facilities
Docusign Envelope ID: 43CE414D-1886-8594-8018-9FCE3E681EB0 Item: 7 49 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 07/07/2026
DEPARTMENT: Information Technology
SUBJECT:
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH SOFTCHOICE, INC. FOR MICROSOFT OFFICE 365 SOFTWARE LICENSES
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement with Softchoice, Inc., for Microsoft Office software licenses.
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the third amendment with Softchoice, Inc., substantially in the form attached.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On July 19, 2022, the City Council approved an Agreement with Softchoice, Inc. ("Softchoice") for Microsoft Office 365 ("Office 365") software licenses (Attachment 1). The Agreement was subsequently amended through the First Amendment (Attachment 2) to adjust license quantities and through the Second Amendment (Attachment 3) to extend the contract term and establish an annual allowance for additional Microsoft licenses to support the City’s operational needs.
Microsoft announced Office 365 pricing updates on February 16, 2026, including a 13% increase to Office 365 E3 licensing at renewal. Because Office 365 E3 licenses represent most of the City's Microsoft software licenses, extending the Agreement preserves previously secured Microsoft pricing and avoids the announced price increase at renewal. In addition, during the current contract term, the City added licenses to support operational needs, increasing recurring annual licensing costs to $56,434.95. Increasing the Agreement’s total not-toexceed compensation would ensure the City has sufficient funds to cover the increased license quantities.
The Proposed Third Amendment (Attachment 4) would extend the Agreement through July 31, 2028, increase the total not-to-exceed compensation by $142,869.90, to a revised total of $333,010.32, and continue the annual allowance of up to $15,000 for additional Office 365 licenses as needed. The scope of services remains unchanged.
Item: 8
50 Softchoice continues to provide satisfactory services in support of the City's operational needs. Sufficient funding is available in the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2025- 27 Operating Budget to support the Proposed Third Amendment.
BACKGROUND:
Office 365 software supports the City's daily operations by providing productivity, collaboration, communication, identity management, and cybersecurity services used throughout the organization. On July 19, 2022, the City Council approved an Agreement with Softchoice for Office 365 licenses. The original Agreement included a three-year term through July 31, 2025, and a total not-to-exceed compensation amount of $117,851.40.
Table 1 summarizes the original Agreement and subsequent amendments.
Table 1: Summary of Agreement Amendments
Amendment Contract Term / Reason for
Amendment
Not-to-Exceed
Compensation
Original
Agreement
(Attachment 1)
August 1, 2022 – July 31, 2025
Three-year Microsoft Office 365
licensing agreement
$117,851.40
First Amendment
(Attachment 2)
No change to term
Added Microsoft licenses for new
employees and project planning
$125,508.75
Second
Amendment
(Attachment 3)
Extended through July 31, 2026
Updated license quantities and
established a $15,000 annual allowance
for additional Microsoft licenses as
needed
$190,140.42
Following City Council approval of the Second Amendment in 2025, the City executed the required Microsoft Volume Licensing documents, securing Microsoft pricing for the current three-year licensing period, through July 31, 2026.
DISCUSSION:
The Proposed Third Amendment would revise the total not-to-exceed compensation to $333,010.32, extend the Agreement through July 31, 2028, and continue the annual allowance of up to $15,000 for additional Office 365 licenses as operational needs arise. The scope of services remains unchanged.
Item: 8
51 Microsoft announced Office 365 pricing updates on February 16, 2026, including a 13% increase to Office 365 E3 licensing at renewal. Office 365 E3 licenses comprise most of the City's Microsoft software licenses. Staff determined that extending the Agreement through July 31, 2028, is in the City's best interest. The extension preserves the City's previously secured Microsoft pricing, avoids the announced 13% price increase at renewal, and aligns the City's Microsoft licensing and procurement timelines.
Table 2 summarizes the City's current Office 365 license quantities approved through each amendment, and the license quantities supporting the Proposed Third Amendment.
Table 2: Current Microsoft Office 365 License Quantities License Original
Agreement
(2022)
First
Amendment
(2023)
Second
Amendment
(2025)
Proposed
Third
Amendment
(2026)
Office 365 E1 70 70 78 78
Office 365 E3 120 125 130 130
Azure Active
Directory
70 70 70 70
Visio Plan 2
(Desktop)
5 5 5 5
Project Plan 3 N/A 5 5 5
Project Plan 1 N/A 10 10 N/A
Teams Rooms Pro
(Per Device)
N/A N/A 3 3
Teams Phone
Standard (Per
Device)
N/A N/A N/A 72
The Second Amendment established annual Microsoft licensing costs of $49,631.67 and authorized up to $15,000 annually for additional Microsoft licenses. During the current contract term, the City added licenses to support operational needs, increasing recurring annual licensing costs to $56,434.95.
The Proposed Third Amendment continues annual licensing costs of $56,434.95 and the annual allowance of up to $15,000 for additional licenses, resulting in an annual not-to-exceed amount of $71,434.95. The Proposed Third Amendment would increase the total not-to-exceed compensation to $333,010.32, ensuring the City has sufficient funds to cover the increased license quantities.
Item: 8
52 Pursuant to the City’s Purchasing and Contracting Guidelines, staff conducted a vendor performance evaluation using the City’s standard criteria, including scope performance, timeliness, budget performance, and customer service. The results are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Vendor Performance Assessment
Softchoice Performance Assessment
August 1, 2025, to June 26, 2026
Category Rating
Unsatisfied (1) - Very Satisfied (5)
Performance of Scope of Services ☐ Unsatisfied ☒ Satisfied ☐ Very Satisfied Timeliness ☐ Unsatisfied ☒ Satisfied ☐ Very Satisfied
Budget Performance ☐ Unsatisfied ☐ Satisfied ☒ Very Satisfied Customer Service ☐ Unsatisfied ☒ Satisfied ☐ Very Satisfied Overall Rating ☐ Unsatisfied ☒ Satisfied ☐ Very Satisfied Softchoice continues to provide satisfactory services and has consistently met expectations in all evaluation categories. Staff recommend approval of the Proposed Third Amendment to extend the term of the Agreement through July 31, 2028, and increase the total not-to-exceed compensation to $333,010.32.
Approval would preserve previously secured Microsoft pricing, continue Office 365 licensing services, support operational needs through additional Microsoft licenses, and ensure uninterrupted services that support the City's daily operations.
The proposed Third Amendment has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney and utilizes the consultant’s standard amendment template, consistent with previous amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funding is available in the FY 2026-27 Operating Budget to support the Proposed Third Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment 1 - Original Agreement with Softchoice
2. Attachment 2 - First Amendment to the Agreement with Softchoice
3. Attachment 3 - Second Amendment to the Agreement with Softchoice Item: 8
53 4. Attachment 4 - Proposed Third Amendment to the Agreement with Softchoice
Initiated By: Joanne Jin, Information Technology Manager Submitted By: Keith Neves, Assistant City Manager
Approved By: Debra Rose, City Manager
Item: 8
54 ATTACHMENT 1
Item: 8
55 Item: 8
56 Item: 8
57 Item: 8
58 Item: 8
59 ATTACHMENT 2
Item: 8
60 55136. 00220\ 41332623. 1
1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AGREEMENT INCORPORATING PIGGYBACK CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF LAKE FOREST
AND
SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION
1. Parties and Date.
This First Amendment to the Agreement Incorporating Piggyback Contract (“ Amendment”) is made and entered into this [** INSERT DATE**] day of [** INSERT MONTH**], 2023 by and between the City of Lake Forest (“ City”) and Softchoice Corporation, a New York corporation Contractor” or “ Seller”). City and Seller are together referred to as “ Parties,” and individually, as a “ Party” in this Amendment.
2. Recitals.
2.1 City and Seller entered into that certain Agreement dated July 19, 2022 DATE**] Agreement”), whereby Seller agreed to provide certain Licenses.
2.2 City and Seller now desire to amend the Agreement for the first time to include additional Licenses.
3. Terms.
3.1 Licenses. The Licenses to be provided by Seller shall be revised to include the additional Licenses set forth in Attachment “1” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
3.2 Compensation. The total compensation shall increase by $7,657. 35 so that the total amount paid to Seller for the purchase of the Licenses under the Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $125,508. 75.
3.3 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term “ Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.
3.4 Adequate Consideration. The Parties stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment. Seller further accepts the terms and conditions of this Amendment as full and final resolution of any and all claims, asserted or otherwise, arising out of or related to the subject of this Amendment and acknowledges that the compensation and/or additional time, if any, set forth herein is adequate and comprises the total compensation and/ or time due for the change(s) included in this Amendment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D1C093E- 1EDE- 4099-9D94-DC9BA27C9A7A 21 JUNE
Item: 8
61 55136. 00220\ 41332623. 1
2 3.5 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, but when taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first herein above written.
City of Lake Forest Softchoice Corporation, a New York
corporation
By: By:
Printed Name: Printed Name:
Title: Title:
Dated: Dated:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D1C093E- 1EDE- 4099-9D94-DC9BA27C9A7A Sean Denomey
6/ 16/ 2023
SVP Services and Customer Success
6/ 21/ 2023
City Manager
Debra Rose
Item: 8
62 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D1C093E- 1EDE- 4099-9D94-DC9BA27C9A7A Item: 8 63 55136. 00220\ 41332623. 1
3 EXHIBIT 1
TO AMENDMENT NO. 1
Softchoice Corp. License Quote
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D1C093E- 1EDE- 4099-9D94-DC9BA27C9A7A Item: 8 64 Quote
Ship To :
City Of Lake Forest
100 CIVIC CTR DR
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
Bill To:
City Of Lake Forest
100 CIVIC CTR DR
LAKE FOREST CA
92630
Quote Prepared For
City Of Lake Forest
Phone:
Email:
Quote Sent By Madeline Pokora
madeline. pokora@softchoice. com
Phone: 312- 655- 9002
Fax:
Anniversary Date
Authorization Number
27- Jul-2023
62504637
Agreement End Date 31- Jul-2025
Comments
IND EA| Level D | Year 1 True-up | Enr:62504637
Quote Valid For May 2023 Order Placement
2 Months Online Services Cost Shown
Item # Mfg SKU # Description Qty
Billing
Frequency
Start
Date
End
Date
Usage
Country
License
Type
Unit Price
Extended
Price
2000401898 7LS- 00002 Project Plan3 Shared All Lng Subs VL MVL Per User
5 Upfront 01-Jun202331- Jul2023United
States
Subscription $ 46.79 $ 233. 95
2000402468 AAA- 10842 O365E3 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr 5 Upfront 01-Jun202331- Jul2023United States
Subscription $ 39.80 $ 199. 00
Quote Q-1395217
Date 02- May- 2023
Softchoice Corporation
314 W Superior St #400
Chicago, IL 60654
Sales/Order desk
Phone: (800) 268-7638
Fax: (800) 268-7639
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D1C093E- 1EDE- 4099-9D94-DC9BA27C9A7A Item: 8 65
2000402898 TRS- 00002 ProjectPlan1 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr
10 Upfront 01-Jun202331- Jul2023Subscription $ 15.66 $ 156. 60 GROUP TOTAL $ 589. 55
Year 2 Future Billings
12 Months Online Services Cost Shown
For Future Billing Purposes Only - Not For Order
Item # Mfg SKU # Description Qty
Billing
Frequency
Start
Date
End
Date
Usage
Country
License
Type
Unit Price
Extended
Price
2000401898 7LS- 00002 Project Plan3 Shared All Lng Subs VL MVL Per User
5 Upfront 01-Aug202331- Jul2024United
States
Subscription $ 280. 00 $ 1,400. 00
2000402468 AAA- 10842 O365E3 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr 5 Upfront 01-Aug202331-Jul2024United States
Subscription $ 238.80 $ 1,194.00
2000402898 TRS- 00002 ProjectPlan1 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr
10 Upfront 01-Aug202331- Jul2024Subscription $ 93.99 $ 939. 90 GROUP TOTAL $ 3,533.90
Year 3 Future Billings
12 Months Online Services Cost Shown
For Future Billing Purposes Only - Not For Order
Item # Mfg SKU # Description Qty
Billing
Frequency
Start
Date
End
Date
Usage
Country
License
Type
Unit Price
Extended
Price
2000401898 7LS- 00002 Project Plan3 Shared All Lng Subs VL MVL Per User
5 Upfront 01-Aug202431-Jul2025United
States
Subscription $ 280.00 $ 1,400.00
2000402468 AAA- 10842 O365E3 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr 5 Upfront 01-Aug202431-Jul2025United States
Subscription $ 238.80 $ 1,194.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D1C093E- 1EDE- 4099-9D94-DC9BA27C9A7A Item: 8 66
2000402898 TRS- 00002 ProjectPlan1 ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr
10 Upfront 01-Aug202431- Jul2025Subscription $ 93.99 $ 939. 90 GROUP TOTAL $ 3,533. 90
SUBTOTAL
DELIVERY: Ground - 3 to 5 days
State Tax
Local Tax
7,657. 35
0.00 0.00
0.00 All currency in this quote is in (USD). TOTAL
7,657.35
0.00 0.00
0.00 7,657. 35
Payment options are only available in listed currency and not billable in other currencies. Pricing, availability, and special offers are subject to change at any time.
This document and the transaction( s) to which it pertains are governed by Softchoice' s online terms of sale, unless a separate purchase agreement was signed by both your company and Softchoice, in which case, that separate agreement will govern. Softchoice' s terms of sale can be found http:// www. softchoice. com/ softchoice- terms- and- conditionsfor- products As noted in the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, any online subscription services within this quote will automatically renew annually unless Softchoice is notified in writing at least 30 days prior to your anniversary. If you are within the final year of your agreement the previous statement does not apply; new products and quantities will be reviewed in your renewal process.
Signature: ___________________________
Name: Debra Rose
Title: City Manager
Date: _________
PO#: N/A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D1C093E- 1EDE- 4099-9D94-DC9BA27C9A7A Item: 8 67 ATTACHMENT 3
Item: 8
68 2
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
AGREEMENT INCORPORATING PIGGYBACK CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF LAKE FOREST
AND
SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION
1. Parties and Date.
This Second Amendment to the Agreement Incorporating Piggyback Contract ("Amendment") is made and entered into this day of
, 2025 by and between the City of Lake Forest ("City") and Softchoice Corporation, a New York corporation ("Contractor" or "Seller"). City and Seller are together referred to as "Parties," and individually, as a "Party" in this Amendment.
2. Recitals.
2.1 City and Seller entered into that certain Agreement dated July 19, 2022 ("Agreement"), whereby Seller agreed to provide certain Licenses, and that Agreement was amended on June 21, 2023 (the "First Amendment").
2.2 City and Seller now desire to amend the Agreement for the second time to include additional Licenses.
3. Terms.
3.1 Licenses. The Licenses to be provided by Seller shall be revised to include the additional Licenses set forth in Attachment "1" attached hereto and incorporated by thisreference. For greater certainty, the Licenses in the First Amendment shall not expire until 7/31/2025.
3.2 Compensation. The total amount paid to Seller for the purchase of the Licenses under the Agreement set out in Attachment “1” shall not exceed the sum of $49,631.67. Seller shall also provide additional Microsoft licenses on an as-need basis to the City, not to exceed the total value of $15,000 (the “Cap”) unless pre-approved in writing by the City, provided that City will track its expenditure to ensure the Cap is not exceeded as per this sentence.
3.3 Continuing Effect of Agreement. This Second Amendment expires when all Licenses subscription terms for licenses r eferenced in Section 3.2 expire. Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term "Agreement" appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.
3.4 Adequate Consideration. The Parties stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment. Seller further accepts the terms and conditions of this Amendment as full and final resolution of any and all claims, asserted or otherwise, arising out of or related to the subject of this Amendment and acknowledges that the compensation and/or additional time, if any, set forth herein is adequate and comprises the total compensation and/or time due for the change(s) included in this Amendment.
Docusign Envelope ID: BAE0C2DB-CC5E-4CA0-8A8B-0E19F67B80CF 17th
June
Item: 8
69 3
3.5 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, but when taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first herein above written.
City of Lake Forest
By:
Softchoice Corporation, a New York
corporation
Printed Name: Printed Name:
Title: Title:
Dated: Dated:
By:
Docusign Envelope ID: BAE0C2DB-CC5E-4CA0-8A8B-0E19F67B80CF Approved as to Form:
Best Best & Krieger, LLP
City Attorney
SVP Services
Sean Denomey
6/12/2025
Mayor
6/27/2025
Scott Voigts
Attest:
Thy Merritt
Acting City Clerk
Item: 8
70 Attachment 1
TO AMENDMENT NO. 2
Softchoice Corporation License Quote
Docusign Envelope ID: BAE0C2DB-CC5E-4CA0-8A8B-0E19F67B80CF Item: 8 71 Quote
Ship To :
City Of Lake Forest
100 CIVIC CTR DR
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
Bill To:
City Of Lake Forest
100 CIVIC CTR DR
LAKE FOREST CA
92630
Quote Prepared For
City Of Lake Forest
Phone:
Email:
Quote Sent By Madeline Pokora
[email protected]
Phone: 312-655-9002
Fax:
Anniversary Date
Authorization Number
Agreement End Date
Comments
SLG EA - Renewal - Year 1 of 3
BUDGETARY
Item # Mfg SKU # Description Qty Billing
Frequency
Start
Date
End
Date
Usage
Country
License
Type Unit Price ExtendedPrice
2000402387 3R2-00002 Entra ID P1 Sub Per User 70 Upfront 01-Aug202531-Jul2026United States
Subscription $56.99 $3,989.30
2000402848 T6A-00024 O365 E1 Existing Customer Sub Per User 78 Upfront 01-Aug202531-Jul2026United States
Subscription $111.49 $8,696.22
Quote Q-2361277
Date 08-May-2025
Softchoice Corporation
314 W Superior St #400
Chicago, IL 60654
Sales/Order desk
Phone: (800) 268-7638
Fax: (800) 268-7639
Docusign Envelope ID: BAE0C2DB-CC5E-4CA0-8A8B-0E19F67B80CF Item: 8 72
2000402468 AAA-10842 O365 E3 Existing Customer Sub Per User 130 Upfront 01-Aug202531-Jul2026United States
Subscription $257.49 $33,473.70
2000401898 7LS-00002 Project P3 Sub Per User 5 Upfront 01-Aug202531-Jul2026United States
Subscription $285.00 $1,425.00
2000671979 NYG-00001 Teams AC with Dial Out US/CA Sub Add-on 190 Upfront 01-Aug202531-Jul2026United States
Subscription $0.00 $0.00
2000743028 V9B-00001 Teams Rooms Pro Sub Per Device 3 Upfront 01-Aug202531-Jul2026United States
Subscription $445.00 $1,335.00
2000402742 N9U-00002 Visio P2 Sub Per User 5 Upfront 01-Aug202531-Jul2026United States
Subscription $142.49 $712.45
GROUP TOTAL $49,631.67
SUBTOTAL
DELIVERY: Ground - 3 to 5 days
State Tax
Local Tax
$49,631.67
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
All currency in this quote is in (USD). TOTAL
$49,631.67
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$49,631.67
Payment options are only available in listed currency and not billable in other currencies. Pricing, availability, and special offers are subject to change at any time.
This document and the transaction(s) to which it pertains are governed by Softchoice's online terms of sale, unless a separate purchase agreement was signed by both your company and Softchoice, in which case, that separate agreement will govern. Softchoice's terms of sale can be found http://www.softchoice.com/softchoice-terms-and-conditionsfor-products As noted in the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, any online subscription services within this quote will automatically renew annually unless Softchoice is notified in writing at least 30 days prior to your anniversary. If you are within the final year of your agreement the previous statement does not apply; new products and quantities will be reviewed in your renewal process.
Docusign Envelope ID: BAE0C2DB-CC5E-4CA0-8A8B-0E19F67B80CF Item: 8 73
Signature :
Name :
Title :
Date :
PO# :
Docusign Envelope ID: BAE0C2DB-CC5E-4CA0-8A8B-0E19F67B80CF Item: 8 74 ATTACHMENT 4
Item: 8
75 2
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
AGREEMENT INCORPORATING PIGGYBACK CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF LAKE FOREST
AND
SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION
1. Parties and Date.
This Third Amendment to the Agreement Incorporating Piggyback Contract ("Amendment") is made and entered into this day of , 2026 by and
between the City of Lake Forest ("City") and Softchoice Corporation, a New York corporation ("Contractor" or "Seller"). City and Seller are together referred to as "Parties," and individually, as a "Party" in this Amendment.
2. Recitals.
2.1 City and Seller entered into that certain Agreement dated July 19, 2022 ("Agreement"), whereby Seller agreed to provide certain Licenses, and that Agreement was amended on June 21, 2023.
2.2 City and Seller now desire to amend the Agreement for the second time to include additional Licenses.
3. Terms.
3.1 Licenses. The Licenses to be provided by Seller shall be revised to include the additional Licensesset forth in Attachment "1" attached hereto and incorporated by thisreference.
3.2 Compensation. The total amount paid to Seller for the purchase of the Licenses under the Agreement set out in Attachment “1” shall not exceed the sum of $49,631.67. Seller shall also provide additional Microsoft licenses on an as-need basis to the City, not to exceed the total value of $15,000 annually (the “Cap”) unless preapproved in writing by the City, provided that City will track its expenditure to ensure the Cap is not exceeded as per this sentence.
3.3 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term "Agreement" appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.
3.4 Adequate Consideration. The Parties stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment. Seller further accepts the terms and conditions of this Amendment as full and final resolution of any and all claims, asserted or otherwise, arising out of or related to the subject of this Amendment and acknowledges that the compensation and/or additional time, if any, set forth herein is adequate and comprises the total compensation and/or time due for the change(s) included in this Amendment.
Docusign Envelope ID: CE2A93D5-5F89-8F60-8394-3DD961EEA8E8 Item: 8 76 3
3.5 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, but when taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first herein above written.
City of Lake Forest Softchoice Corporation, a New York
corporation
By:
Printed Name: Printed Name: David Butkiewicz
Title: Title:
Dated: Dated:
Manager of PubSec Contracts & Programs
Docusign Envelope ID: CE2A93D5-5F89-8F60-8394-3DD961EEA8E8 Approved as to Form:
Best Best & Krieger, LLP
City Attorney
6/25/2026
Item: 8
77 Attachment 1
TO AMENDMENT NO. 3
Softchoice Corporation License Quote
Docusign Envelope ID: CE2A93D5-5F89-8F60-8394-3DD961EEA8E8 Item: 8 78 Docusign Envelope ID: CE2A93D5-5F89-8F60-8394-3DD961EEA8E8 Item: 8 79 Docusign Envelope ID: CE2A93D5-5F89-8F60-8394-3DD961EEA8E8 Item: 8 80 Docusign Envelope ID: CE2A93D5-5F89-8F60-8394-3DD961EEA8E8 Item: 8 81 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 7/7/2026
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06-21-5437 AND CERTIFICATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2024030755) FOR DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 165,803 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 26200 ENTERPRISE WAY
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
CERTIFYING THE IPT ENTERPRISE BUSINESS CENTER LLC PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2024030755), ADOPTING
THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06-21-5437, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT;
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 (“SDP”) is a request for the demolition of the existing 144,906-square-foot (“sq. ft.”) building at 26200 Enterprise Way and construction of a new 35-foot tall,165,803 sq. ft. industrial building (“proposed Project”). The proposed Project includes a gated truck loading area, new parking spaces, and new landscaping throughout the site. Although the tenant has not been determined yet, the proposed Project includes a mix of office, manufacturing, and warehouse space. Additionally, the proposed Project includes off-site improvements at five intersections within the City of Lake Forest (“City”) to enhance public safety and address concerns related to large truck turning movements. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Item: 9
82 (“CEQA”), a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) (State Clearinghouse #2024030755) was prepared for the proposed Project.
On June 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider certification of the Final EIR, make certain environmental findings, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and consider the SDP. The public hearing had 51 public speakers. A little past midnight on June 5, 2026, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted two resolutions resulting in certification of the Final EIR and approval of the SDP. The Planning Commission also adopted revised findings and five new conditions of approval.
On June 18, 2026, Douglas Carstens, on behalf of “We the Meadows,” submitted a timely written notice of appeal, requesting that the City Council “overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Plan and environmental impact report.” Appellant also requested that the “Project should be returned to Planning staff with instructions to revise the EIR to address” the alleged deficiencies. The notice provides, among other things, that the appeal is based on the following:
• Inadequacy of the EIR’s disclosure, analysis, and mitigation of the project’s adverse impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”), nearby communities, noise pollution, light pollution, and cumulative impacts;
• Deficiencies in the EIR related to the project description; • Deficiencies in the EIR related to the alternatives; and • Conditions added to the project by the Planning Commission do not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for concrete, enforceable mitigation.
The reviewing body for the appeal of a Planning Commission’s decision is the City Council. The City Council’s review of the appealed decision is de novo. This means the matter is considered anew, without deference to the Planning Commission’s decision, and the City Council may take any action that might legally have been taken in the first instance. Staff recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolutions related to the EIR (Attachment 1) and SDP (Attachment 2), which would approve the proposed Project, with revisions to the conditions of approval to provide more clarity and strengthen enforceability of two conditions added at the Planning Commission meeting. This report also includes the following attachments for review by the City Council:
• June 4, 2026, Planning Commission report (with attachments) (Attachment 3)
• Written comments to Planning Commission (Attachment 4) • Memo to Planning Commission for late EIR comments (Attachment 5) • Meadows disclosure statement (Attachment 6)
• Planning Commission adopted resolutions (Attachment 7) Item: 9
83 • Written notice of appeal (Attachment 8)
• Table of written responses to notice of appeal (Attachment 9) • Written public comments to City Council (Attachment 10) BACKGROUND:
The SDP is a request for the demolition of the existing 144,906-square-foot (“sq. ft.”) building at 26200 Enterprise Way, and construction of the proposed Project.
The proposed Project includes a gated truck loading area, new parking spaces, and new landscaping throughout the site. Although the tenant has not been determined yet, the proposed Project includes a mix of office, manufacturing, and warehouse space. Additionally, the proposed Project includes off-site improvements at five intersections within the city to enhance public safety and address concerns related to large truck turning movements. Pursuant to CEQA, a Final EIR was prepared for the proposed Project.
On June 4, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the SDP and the corresponding Final EIR. The Planning Commission report which details the proposed Project, written public comments provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting, and the City of Lake Forest (“City”) memo responding to late EIR comments provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting, are included as Attachments 3, 4, and 5 respectively. The public hearing began with a presentation of the proposed Project by staff and a presentation from the applicant. The public comments portion of the hearing included public comments from 51 public speakers. The majority of the speakers were residents of the Meadows Residential Community (“Meadows”) who spoke in opposition to the proposed Project. Some of the speakers spoke in favor of the proposed Project. Following public comment, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed Project. The discussion included that the Meadows residents received a disclosure notice, per State law, that the property is adjacent to industrial uses. A copy of the Meadows disclosure notice is included with this report.
After the Planning Commission’s questions and discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft five new conditions, which were verbally agreed to by the applicant and are summarized below:
• Creation of a quiet zone (no backup alarms and no engine idling) in the internal driveway adjacent to the Meadows between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, daily (Condition 84);
Item: 9
84 • All commercial truck traffic shall be prohibited from utilizing the shared drive aisle at the north corner of the property, that leads to Bake Parkway (Condition 85);
• Restriction of idling at the site to five minutes or less (Condition 86); • Commercial truck traffic on the project site shall not exceed 15 trucks per hour during daytime hours and four trucks per hour during nighttime hours (Condition 87); and
• The property owner and/or business operator shall obtain Community Development approval of sign plans related to conditions 84-86 (Condition 73).
The purpose of these new conditions of approval are to better ensure the peace and tranquility of the surrounding residential uses. These new conditions of approval were not mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts. Staff provided the Planning Commission with a written draft of the five new conditions of approval and revised findings relating to how the new conditions better ensure compatibility between the proposed Project and surrounding uses and better protect the general public welfare. Copies of the new conditions and revised findings were provided at the table in the rear of the Council Chamber for public review, and were projected on the screen.
A little after midnight on June 5, 2026, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt the two staff recommended resolutions resulting in certification of the Final EIR and approval of the SDP with the new conditions (Conditions 73, 84-87) and revised findings. On June 18, 2026, a timely written notice of appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the SDP and the corresponding Final EIR was filed by Douglas Carstens, on behalf of “We the Meadows.”
DISCUSSION:
Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision
Section 2.04.110 of the Lake Forest Municipal Code (“LFMC”) provides that decisions of the Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council within 15 days of the City’s issuance of the notice of the Planning Commission’s decision. The City Council’s review of an appealed decision is de novo, meaning the City Council may take any action that might legally have been taken in the first instance. Any appeal must set forth the following:
1. The specific action appealed;
2. The specific grounds for the appeal; and
Item: 9
85 3. The relief or action requested from the Planning Commission or City Council.
A timely written notice of appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the SDP and the corresponding Final EIR was filed by Douglas Carstens, on behalf of “We the Meadows,” on June 18, 2026. The written notice of appeal provides, among other things, that the appeal is based on the following:
• Inadequacy of the EIR’s disclosure, analysis, and mitigation of the project’s adverse impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and VMT, nearby communities, noise pollution, light pollution, and cumulative impacts;
• Deficiencies in the EIR related to the project description; • Deficiencies in the EIR related to the alternatives; and • Conditions added to the project by the Planning Commission do not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for concrete, enforceable mitigation.
As detailed in the Final EIR and supporting technical analyses, the City comprehensively evaluated these topics consistent with CEQA requirements, and, where applicable, mitigation measures and regulatory compliance measures were identified to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible. In instances where impacts remain significant and unavoidable, the Final EIR provides the requisite analysis and disclosure and supports the City’s ability to make the necessary findings. Where the appeal asserts deficiencies, the City has provided detailed responses clarifying that the Final EIR adequately addressed the issue or explained why no additional analysis is required under CEQA. A table identifying each issue raised in the appeal letter, along with staff’s response, is provided as Attachment 9.
New Staff-Recommended Conditions of Approval
During the public hearing, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval to the SDP resolution that generally restricts commercial truck traffic on the project site to a maximum of 15 trucks per hour during daytime hours, and four trucks per hour during nighttime hours (Condition # 87 in the Planning Commission resolution). This condition is based on the truck trip assumptions used in the Final EIR. At the hearing, the applicant verbally agreed to the condition. Staff recommend revising the condition and adding two new conditions to provide more clarity and strengthen the enforceability of the condition. The new proposed recommended conditions are summarized below:
• Clarify that the condition refers to truck trips, which is a truck entering or exiting the project site, during daytime and nighttime hours; • Require the property owner to install and maintain a security camera system that provides the date and time of each truck arrival and departure; Item: 9
86 • Requires the property owner to retain a third party to verify monitoring data and submit quarterly reports to the City; and
• Provides that each truck in excess of the number of trucks allowed per the conditions, shall constitute a separate violation, subject to an administrative penalty in accordance with LFMC Chapter 1.16 (Administrative Citations).
The new, staff-recommended conditions of approval are included as conditions 75, 89, and 90 in the draft City Council resolution related to the SDP. To accommodate these new conditions of approval and a numbering error in the resolution, some of the other conditions of approval from the Planning Commission resolution have been renumbered, and references to numbered conditions have been updated. The content of the findings in the draft SDP resolution are the same as the adopted Planning Commission resolution.
PUBLIC NOTICING:
In accordance with the requirements of LFMC Section 9.184.040(C)(2), the proposed Project has been noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, and public notices were posted at City Hall and sent to owners of all property within 300 feet of the proposed Project boundary on June 25, 2026. In addition, on June 25, 2026, the public notice was emailed to the proposed Project’s interest list, which includes anyone who provided written comments during the Final EIR public review periods. Since the public notice was made available, the City has received written public comments regarding the appeal. Comments received after the public notice was made available, but prior to July 2, 2026 (at noon), are included.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. The appellant has paid the applicable fee to file an appeal.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment 1 - Draft resolution adopting environmental findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting statement of overriding considerations, certifying the IPT Enterprise Business Center, LLC project final EIR, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
2. Attachment 2 - Draft resolution approving SDP 06-21-5437 a. General Plan Compliance Table
3. Attachment 3 - June 4, 2026, Planning Commission report (with attachments)
Item: 9
87 4. Attachment 4 - Written comments to Planning Commission
5. Attachment 5 - Memo to Planning Commission with response to late EIR Comments
6. Attachment 6 - Meadows disclosure statement
7. Attachment 7 - Planning Commission adopted resolutions
8. Attachment 8 - Written notice of appeal
9. Attachment 9 - Table of written responses to notice of appeal
10. Attachment 10 - Written public comments to City Council Initiated By: Jennifer Mansur, AICP, Senior Planner
Submitted By: Gayle Ackerman, AICP, Director of Community Development Approved By: Debra Rose, City Manager
Item: 9
88 55136.00461\45152173.3
ATTACHMENT 1
Item: 9
89
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
RESOLUTION NO. CC 2026-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
FOREST ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
CERTIFYING THE IPT ENTERPRISE BUSINESS CENTER LLC
PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
#2024030755), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 06-21-5437, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Project involves the demolition of the existing 144,906- square-fot (sq ft), two-story office/industrial building and redevelopment, construction and operation of a 35-foot (ft) tall, 165,803 sq ft tilt-up concrete industrial building. The project includes a gated truck loading area, truck and auto parking spaces, and new landscaping throughout the site. Although the tenant has not been determined yet, the proposed project includes a mix of office, manufacturing, and warehouse space. Additionally, the project includes off-site improvements at five intersections within the City to enhance public safety and address concerns related to large truck turning movements. The project will require approval of Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 by the City, Secured Fire Protection Agreement and Fire Master Plan by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), a Warehouse Operations Notification and annual documentation demonstrating compliance with Rule 2305 to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); and
WHEREAS, the 8.83-acre project site is located at 26200 Enterprise Way in the north-central portion of Lake Forest in Orange County, California, 92630 (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 610-401-06). The project site currently consists of a 144,906-square-foot (sq ft), two-story tilt-up office/industrial building which was previously used as an office, manufacturing, and research testing facility by Panasonic Avionics but has been vacant since 2021. The areas surrounding the project site consist of a mix of land uses, including industrial and residential uses.
The project site is bordered to the north, south, and west by existing industrial buildings that include a mix of allowable uses including office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses. The recently constructed Meadows Residential Development (formerly the Nakase Nursery site) is to the northeast/east of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Enterprise Way, which is accessed from Dimension Drive. Bake Parkway is approximately 0.11 miles north, Lake Forest Drive is approximately 0.4 miles south, and SR-241 is approximately 0.7 miles north of the project site; and
Item: 9
90
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Lake Forest is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City evaluated the Project by preparing an Initial Study, to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was required; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City received subsequent comments indicating the potential for significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on March 20, 2024, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse Number #2024030755) would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, 120 comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held duly noticed Scoping Meetings on April 3, 2024 and April 24, 2024, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: air quality, geology and soils, and tribal and cultural resources; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation and traffic; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation on July 10, 2025; and Item: 9
91
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time that the City sent Notice of Completion to the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation on July 10, 2025; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at Lake Forest City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the Foothill Ranch and El Toro public libraries; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45-day public review and comment period from July 10, 2025 to September 15, 2025; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and
WHEREAS, the City received 122 written comment letters on the Draft EIR, including an acknowledgement from the State Clearinghouse that the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on June 4, 2026; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2026, the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR) all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR) all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR) written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR) and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and
WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the Item: 9
92
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
preparation of the EIR which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and identifies all significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section III of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section IV of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section V of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth in the applicable impact discussions throughout Sections II through V of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Item: 9
93
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing to consider adopting environmental findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final EIR, adopting the MMRP, and approving Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 for the Project and solicited comments on the same. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to certify the Final EIR and approve the Project on June 5, 2026; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2026, Doug Carstens, on behalf of “We the Meadows,” submitted a written notice of appeal in compliance with Lake Forest Municipal Code Section 2.04.110; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Lake Forest Municipal Code Section 2.04.130, the City gave notice of the public hearing at which the appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination of the Project would be considered by the City Council by publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation on June 25, 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 June 25, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Lake Forest Municipal Code Section 2.04.130, at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the appeal of the Planning Commission’s CEQA determinations and approval of Site Development Permit 06-21-5437, and at which time the Project was fully considered under a de novo standard of review; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2026, the City Council considered: adopting environmental findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifying the Final EIR, adopting the MMRP, and approving Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 for the Project, and solicited comments on the same; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
Item: 9
94
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” where were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby approves the Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 for the Project.
Item: 9
95
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
SECTION 6. Pursuant to the de novo standard of review, and based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and approves the proposed Project.
SECTION 7. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, California. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 8. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall cause a Notice of Decision of the appeal to be served on the appellant and the applicant, in substantially the same form as set forth in Lake Forest Municipal Code Section 2.04.130(D), within five days of the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED this 7th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
____________________
ROBERT PEQUEÑO
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
THY MERRITT
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
MATTHEW E. RICHARDSON
CITY ATTORNEY
Item: 9
96
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF LAKE FOREST )
I, Thy Merritt, City Clerk of the City of Lake Forest, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-__ was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Lake Forest City Council on the 7th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
_______________________________
THY MERRITT
CITY CLERK
Item: 9
97
55136.00461\45152173.3
EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Item: 9
98
55136.00461\45152173.3
Item: 9
99
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Pursuant to Section 21081 of the PRC, the City may only approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
As indicated above, Section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].) While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (PRC § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (PRC § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines, add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility (State CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland Item: 9
100
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
(1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also PRC § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions.
The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v.
Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
SECTION II: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT WERE
DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
The City Council hereby finds that based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Final EIR (FEIR), and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR (DEIR), no substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the proposed project would have an impact on the following environmental areas:
Aesthetics:
• Threshold 4.1.1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and would not substantially damage scenic resources, including scenic vistas from public parks and views from designated scenic highways or arterial roadways. (DEIR at 4.1-16 to 4.1-18) • Threshold 4.1.2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. (DEIR at 4.1-18) • Threshold 4.1.3: The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings where:
• The project exceeds the allowed height or bulk regulations or exceeds the prevailing height and bulk of existing structures;
• The project is proposed to have an architectural style or to use building materials that would be in vivid contrast to an adjacent development Item: 9
101
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
where that development had been constructed adhering to a common architectural style or theme;
• The project is located on a visually prominent site and, due to its height, bulk, architecture or signage, would be in vivid contrast to the surrounding development or environment degrading the visual unity of the area;
• The project would include unscreened outdoor uses or materials; or • The project would result in the introduction of an architectural feature or building mass that conflicts with the character of the surrounding development. (DEIR at 4.1-18 to 4.1-25)
Agricultural and Forestry Resources:
• Threshold 4.2.1: The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. (DEIR at 4.2-8)
• Threshold 4.2.2: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. (DEIR at 4.2-8) • Threshold 4.2.3: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (DEIR at 4.2-9)
• Threshold 4.2.4: The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (DEIR at 4.2-9) • Threshold 4.2.5: The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (DEIR at 4.2-9)
• Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. Because the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources, it would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on agricultural and forestry resources.
Therefore, there would be no cumulatively significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources. (DEIR at 4.2-10)
Biological Resources:
• Threshold 4.4.2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (DEIR at 4.4-11)
Item: 9
102
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
• Threshold 4.4.3: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (DEIR at 4.4-11)
• Threshold 4.4.5: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (DEIR at 4.4-12)
• Threshold 4.4.6: The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (DEIR at 4.4- 12)
Geology and Soils:
• Threshold 4.7.1(i): The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (DEIR at 4.7-12)
• Threshold 4.7.1(iii): The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. (DEIR at 4.7-13)
• Threshold 4.7.1(iv): The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. (DEIR at 4.7-13)
• Threshold 4.7.5: The proposed project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (DEIR at 4.7-16)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
• Threshold 4.9.4: The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (DEIR at 4.9-14) • Threshold 4.9.5: The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. (DEIR at
4.9-14)
Item: 9
103
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
• Threshold 4.9.7: The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. (DEIR at 4.9-16)
Hydrology and Water Quality:
• Threshold 4.10.3(iv): The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; and would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.. (DEIR at 4.10-34) Land Use and Planning:
• Threshold 4.11.1: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. (DEIR at 4.11-7)
• Threshold 4.11.2: The proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; would not substantially conflict with existing on-site or adjacent land use due to project-related significant unavoidable indirect effects (e.g., noise, aesthetics, etc.) that precludes use of the land as it was intended by the General Plan; and would not conflict with the Central and Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Program/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) of which the City of Lake Forest is a participant. (DEIR at 4.11-8 to 4.11-27) • Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would not have a land use or planning impact; therefore, it would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact relative to these topics. No cumulatively significant impact related to land use and planning would result from development of the proposed project. (DEIR 4.11-27)
Mineral Resources:
• Threshold 4.12.1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state. (DEIR at 4.12-3 to 4.12-4) • Threshold 4.12.2: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (DEIR at 4.12-4) • Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources; therefore, it would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact relative to this topic. No cumulatively significant impact related to mineral resources would result from development of the proposed project. (DEIR 4.12-4)
Item: 9
104
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Noise:
• Threshold 4.13.3: The proposed project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (DEIR at 4.13-21)
Population and Housing:
• Threshold 4.14.2: The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (DEIR at 4.14-8)
Recreation:
• Threshold 4.16.2: The proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (DEIR at 4.16-5) SECTION III: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The FEIR identified certain less than significant effects that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the project are less than significant based on the implementation of project design features and existing regulations and/or regulatory compliance measures.
Aesthetics:
1. Threshold 4.1.4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and would not create a new source of substantial night lighting that would result in “sky glow” (i.e. illumination of the night sky in urban areas) or “spill light” (i.e. light that falls outside of the area intended to be lighted) onto adjacent sensitive land uses.
Impact: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and would not create a new source of substantial night lighting that would result in “sky glow” or “spill light” onto adjacent sensitive land uses. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.1-25 to
4.1-26)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.1-25 to 4.1-26) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.1-25 to 4.1-26)
d. Supporting Explanation: During construction, illumination during evening and nighttime hours would be used for safety and security purposes only, would be Item: 9
105
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
downlit to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties, and would occur only for the duration required for the temporary construction process; therefore, it would not substantially impact sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of surrounding uses, or interfere with the performance of off-site activities. Because (1) relatively few construction vehicles and pieces of construction equipment would be used on the project site, and (2) the construction site would be fenced and shielded from pedestrian and vehicular views. Additionally, construction vehicles would not be operating at night. Therefore, daytime and nighttime impacts associated with new, temporary sources of light and glare associated with construction activity would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.1-25)
Similar to the existing condition, the proposed project would provide parking lot lights consistent with the City’s requirements for parking lot safety and building lighting. All project lighting would be hooded or shielded to focus the light downward and prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties. All new lighting would comply with applicable regulations of the 2019 State Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and with Section 9.72.085 of the City of Lake Forest Municipal Code (requiring site lighting be confined to the project site). The proposed building materials (e.g., concrete, glass, metal) and uses of these materials are typical of those found in the surrounding areas and are not anticipated to create unusual or isolated glare effects that would affect daytime visibility or views in the project vicinity. The rooftop of the proposed building would be flat; therefore, the proposed photovoltaic panels are not anticipated to generate significant amounts of glare onto adjacent properties. As sources of light and glare associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the existing surrounding uses during both the daytime and nighttime hours and because the project would comply with applicable lighting standards set forth in City’s Municipal Code and General Plan and Title 24 requirements, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, or create a new source of substantial night lighting that would result in “sky glow” (i.e. illumination of the night sky in urban areas) or “spill light” (i.e. light that falls outside of the area intended to be lighted) onto adjacent sensitive land uses. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.1-26)
2. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to aesthetics in the project area. (DEIR at 4.1-26 to
4.1-27)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.1-27)
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR 4.1-27)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would have no impact on scenic vistas, no impact on scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway, and no impact related to conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic Item: 9
106
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
quality; therefore, no cumulative impact would occur. If the project would result in no impact with respect to a particular threshold, by definition, it would not contribute to a cumulative impact.
Similar to the proposed project, cumulative development would also be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements related to light and glare including Title 24 and the City’s Municipal Code to reduce potential impacts associated with light and glare and if significant light and glare impacts are anticipated, appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the CEQA environmental review process. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to light and glare. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.1-27) Air Quality:
3. Threshold 4.3.1: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Impact: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.3-22 to
4.3-24)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.3-22 to 4.3-24) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.3-22 to 4.3-24)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily emissions of criteria pollutants (DEIR Tables 4.3.J and 4.3.K, at
4.3-28 and 4.3-29); therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new air quality standards violation and is consistent with the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
The projections in the 2022 AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based, in part, on assumptions in regional population, housing, and growth forecasts, as well as assumptions and projections of local planning agencies. The proposed project is consistent with City’s existing General Plan and zoning designations. The proposed project would not result in direct population growth because the proposed project is not a residential use and does not include a residential component; therefore, it would not add new residents at the project site. Project development would generate approximately 187 new jobs in Lake Forest, representing approximately 17 percent and less than one percent of the job growth estimated in Lake Forest and Orange County, respectively. Given that approximately 1,800 and 64,100 people are Item: 9
107
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
currently unemployed in Lake Forest and Orange County, respectively, it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of these positions would be filled by existing City or County residents. The growth projections of the proposed project would be within the parameters of expected overall growth in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in growth in the area or in Lake Forest beyond that which was planned for by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) or used in the development of the 2022 AQMP; therefore, impacts associated with conflicts with the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. (DEIR at
4.3-22- to 4.3-24)
4. Threshold 4.3.4: The proposed project would not result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact: The proposed project would not result in other emissions (including odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.3-38-to 4.3-39)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.3-38-to 4.3-39) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.3-38-to 4.3-39)
d. Supporting Explanation: Objectionable odors may be generated during the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during project construction. Those odors would be temporary and would not result in long-term odor impacts. The proposed uses associated with the project are not anticipated to generate objectionable odors during operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant permanent impacts related to odors on nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses). (DEIR at 4.3-38 to 4.3-39) Biological Resources:
5. Threshold 4.4.1: The proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Impact: The proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. (DEIR at 4.4-10 to 4.4-11) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Item: 9
108
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following regulatory compliance measure is applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.4-10 to 4.4-11, and 4.4-14) RCM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Clearance Survey. If construction/ground disturbing activities, including demolition, occurs between February 1 and August 31, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds within 3 days of the start of any construction, vegetation clearing, or grading activities (including disking and demolition) to ensure that no nesting birds are disturbed during construction. The Qualified Biologist shall be retained by the Construction Contractor. The Qualified Biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests would occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a nodisturbance buffer. In general, the no-disturbance buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for passerines and 250 feet for raptors. However, a species’ sensitivity to disturbance can vary among species, the level of noise or construction disturbance, and the line of sight between the nest and the disturbance. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor, with experience in monitoring active nests, shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor daily all active nests to observe the efficacy of the no-disturbance buffers and to document any new nesting occurrences to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Adversely affected nesting behavior, as determined by the biological monitor, includes, but is not limited to, disrupting reproductive behavior, nest abandonment, and/or prolonged absences of parents while incubating eggs. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction, vegetation clearing, or grading activities (including disking and demolition) within the buffer area can occur. Field memorandums shall be prepared by the biological monitor within 24 hours of each day of monitoring and shall be submitted to the City of Lake Forest to document compliance with the applicable resource protection measures.
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.4-10 to 4.4-11)
d. Supporting Explanation: The entire project site is developed with an existing office/ industrial building and supporting infrastructure. No evidence of listed, candidate, non-listed sensitive, or special-status plant or wildlife species on the site was identified during biological resource surveys. Due to the on-site absence of suitable habitat, no such species are expected to occur on site. Additionally, there are no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern on site.
Potential noise, vibration, light, dust, or human disturbance associated with project activities would only temporarily deter wildlife from using areas in the immediate vicinity. These indirect effects could temporarily alter migration behaviors, territories, Item: 9
109
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
or foraging habitats in adjacent areas. However, because these are temporary effects, it is likely that any wildlife already living and/or moving in close proximity to the project site would temporarily alter their normal functions during active construction activities and then re-establish those functions once temporary construction activities have ceased.
Despite the disturbed condition of the project site and the lack of vegetation communities, the project site does have existing landscaping that could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds from implementation of the proposed project, if construction/ground disturbing activities, including demolition, occurs between February 1 and August 31, a nesting bird clearance survey would be required prior to removal of any landscaped vegetation, as detailed in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) BIO-1. RCM BIO-1 includes provisions for appropriate buffering and monitoring of active nests during construction operations. With implementation of RCM BIO-1, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.4-10 to 4.4-11)
6. Threshold 4.4.4: The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Impact: The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. (DEIR at 4.4-11 to 4.4-12) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following regulatory compliance measure is applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.4-11 to 4.4-12, and 4.4-14) RCM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Clearance Survey. If construction/ground disturbing activities, including demolition, occurs between February 1 and August 31, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds within 3 days of the start of any construction, vegetation clearing, or grading activities (including disking and demolition) to ensure that no nesting birds are disturbed during construction. The Qualified Biologist shall be retained by the Construction Contractor. The Qualified Biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests would occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a nodisturbance buffer. In general, the no-disturbance buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for passerines and 250 feet for raptors. However, Item: 9
110
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
a species’ sensitivity to disturbance can vary among species, the level of noise or construction disturbance, and the line of sight between the nest and the disturbance. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor, with experience in monitoring active nests, shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor daily all active nests to observe the efficacy of the no-disturbance buffers and to document any new nesting occurrences to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Adversely affected nesting behavior, as determined by the biological monitor, includes, but is not limited to, disrupting reproductive behavior, nest abandonment, and/or prolonged absences of parents while incubating eggs. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction, vegetation clearing, or grading activities (including disking and demolition) within the buffer area can occur. Field memorandums shall be prepared by the biological monitor within 24 hours of each day of monitoring and shall be submitted to the City of Lake Forest to document compliance with the applicable resource protection measures.
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.4-11 to 4.4-12)
d. Supporting Explanation: The project site and adjacent areas are entirely developed.
Furthermore, there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of habitat within or connecting the project site to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages.
Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors. While no active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the breeding season field investigation, landscaped areas on the project site have the potential to provide minimal foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that are adapted to urban environments. RCM BIO-1 includes measures to prevent potential impacts to nesting birds during construction activities. With implementation of RCM BIO-1, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.4-11 to 4.4-12)
7. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to biological resources in the project area. (DEIR at
4.4-13)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.4-13)
Item: 9
111
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.4-13)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would have no impact on sensitive wildlife species (aside from nesting birds), plant communities, habitat fragmentation, jurisdictional waters, wildlife movements, wildlife migratory wildlife corridors, wildlife nursery sites, habitat conservation plans, or local ordinances or regulations protecting biological resources. Because the proposed project would have no impact on the biological resources listed above, it would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on biological resources. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively significant impact related to biological resources.
All cumulative projects would be required to comply with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code to address potential impacts to nesting birds, which would ensure project impacts on nesting birds are evaluated and appropriately mitigated by each cumulative project. When considered together, impacts to biological resources (particularly impacts to nesting birds) would not be cumulatively considerable and no cumulatively significant impact on biological resources, would result from development of the proposed project. (DEIR at 4.4-13) No mitigation is required.
Cultural Resources:
8. Threshold 4.5.1 The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
Impact: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historic resource. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would reduce potential construction-related impacts to unknown historical resources to less than significant levels. (DEIR at 4.5-7 to 4.5-8) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following regulatory compliance measure is applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.5-7 to 4.5-8, and 4.5-10 to 4.5- 11)
RCM CUL-1 Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). Personnel of the proposed project shall not collect or move any archaeological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded beyond 100 feet from the find on other portions of the project site. The found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Item: 9
112
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Director of Community Development, or designee, shall ensure that this regulatory compliance measure is documented on the grading plans.
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.5-7 to 4.5-8)
d. Supporting Explanation: The project site is occupied by a modern building and parking lot. The existing building was developed in 1999. Since the building is less than 50 years old, it is not considered to be of historical significance. There are no known archaeological resources on the project site that would qualify as “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. In the unlikely event that a previously undocumented historical or unique archaeological resource is encountered during construction, the provisions specified in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(f) would be followed as specified in RCM CUL-1.
Therefore, with implementation of RCM CUL-1, the proposed project would not result in impacts associated with a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at
4.5-7 to 4.5-8)
9. Threshold 4.5.2: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5.
Impact: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known archaeological resource. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would reduce potential construction-related impacts to unknown archaeological resources to less than significant levels. (DEIR at 4.5-8 to 4.5-9) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following regulatory compliance measure is applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.5-8 to 4.5-11 ) RCM CUL-1 Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). Personnel of the proposed project shall not collect or move any archaeological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded beyond 100 feet from the find on other portions of the project site. The found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Director of Community Development, or designee, shall ensure that this regulatory compliance measure is documented on the grading plans.
Item: 9
113
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.5-8 to 4.5-9)
d. Supporting Explanation: The project site is occupied by a modern building and parking lot and has been subject to over excavation and compaction that has disturbed sediments beyond depths at which buried cultural resources are likely. No evidence of any cultural resources (including prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or historic-period buildings) was identified within the project site during the archaeological field survey. Due to previous site disturbance, the site-specific archaeological assessment concluded that the discovery of buried cultural resources during project construction was unlikely. The assessment further determined no additional cultural resources work or monitoring was necessary during project-related ground disturbance and construction activities.
In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are discovered at any time during construction, those activities would be halted in the vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist as required by the Public Resource Code and City of Lake Forest General Plan 2040 Action RR-3b in accordance with RCM CUL-1. RCM CUL-1 establishes the procedure for the avoidance, protection, assessment, and treatment of any archaeological resource uncovered during the course of project-related ground disturbance and construction activities. With implementation of RCM CUL-1 potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.5-8 to 4.5-9)
10. Threshold 4.5.3: The proposed project would not disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Impact: The proposed project would not disturb known human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would reduce potential construction-related impacts to human remains to less than significant levels. (DEIR at 4.5-9)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following regulatory compliance measure is applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.5-9, and 4.5-11) RCM CUL-2 Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).
With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to Item: 9
114
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
the site. The MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated grave goods in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Director of Community Development, or designee, shall ensure that this regulatory compliance measure is documented on the grading plans. c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.4-9)
d. Supporting Explanation: The project site has been previously disturbed including over excavation and compaction during development of the existing building and site infrastructure. No human remains are documented/known to be on the project site.
Due to the developed nature and past disturbance of the site, the likelihood of discovering unknown human remains during construction of the proposed project is extremely low. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during construction activities, the Construction Contractor would be required to implement RCM CUL-2, which requires compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code for the treatment of human remains. With implementation of RCM CUL-2 potential impacts to previously undiscovered human remains would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.5-9)
11. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to cultural resources in the project area. (DEIR at 4.5- 9 to 4.5-10)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.5-9 to 4.5-10) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.5-9 to 4.5-10)
d. Supporting Explanation: The project would have no impact on historic resources.
Implementation of RCM CUL-1 and RCM CUL-2, which would ensure potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources and/or human remain less than significant during development of the proposed project.
All discretionary cumulative development would be required to comply with CEQA and implement applicable regulatory compliance and mitigation measures to ensure the appropriate identification and mitigation of cultural resource impacts specific to each development. Since all such projects would be required to implement appropriate regulatory compliance measures and mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources resulting from development of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. No cumulatively significant impact relative to cultural resources would occur and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.5-9 to 4.5-10) Item: 9
115
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Energy:
12. Threshold 4.6.1: The proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Impact: The proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, at 4.6-7 to 4.6-10)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.6-7 to 4.6-10) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.6-7 to 4.6-10)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would increase the annual construction generated fuel use in Orange County by approximately 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage and by less than 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel usage. Impacts related to energy use during construction would be temporary and relatively small in comparison to the County’s overall use of the State’s available energy sources.
Project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.6-7 to 4.6-8)
During operation, the proposed project would increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange County by less than 0.01 percent. Additionally, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would increase the annual fuel use in Orange County by less than 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel usage and by approximately 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage. The proposed project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage. In addition, the proposed project will be seeking Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification through the Applicant’s LEED Volume program. The proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment use, and transportation. Impacts related to consumption of energy resources during operation would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.6-9 to 436-10)
13. Threshold 4.6.2: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Item: 9
116
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Impact: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at
4.6-10 to 4.6-11)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.6-10 to 4.6-11) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.6-10 to 4.6-11)
d. Supporting Explanation: Energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange County, and the State’s available energy resources and energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans. Potential impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.6- 10 to 4.6-11)
14. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to energy in the project area. (DEIR at 4.6-11 to 4.6- 12)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.6-11 to 4.6-12) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.6-11 to 4.6-12)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project’s share of cumulative electricity consumption is negligible, while its share of cumulative natural gas consumption is zero. The proposed project, in combination with cumulative development, is well within SCE’s system-wide net annual increase in electricity supplies over the 2018 to 2030 period, and there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for estimated net increases in energy demands. Transportation energy use would not represent a major amount of energy use compared to the amount of existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips throughout Orange County and the region. The proposed project and cumulative development are required to comply with various federal and State government legislation to improve energy efficiency in buildings, equipment, and appliances and to reduce vehicle miles traveled; therefore, the proposed project in combination with cumulative development would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy Item: 9
117
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
and would not be cumulatively considerable. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, at 4.6-11 to 4.6- 12)
Geology and Soils:
15. Threshold 4.7.2: The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Impact: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.7-13 to 4.7-14) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following Regulatory Compliance Measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.7-13 to 4.7-14 and 4.10-39 to 4.10-41)
RCM WQ-1 Construction General Permit. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Construction Contractor shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No.
CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including a Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTs). The Construction Contractor shall provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit. Project construction shall not be initiated until a WDID is received from the SWRCB and is provided to the City, or designee.
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit and submitted vis SMARTs. These include: Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/waste management, management of non-storm water discharges, run-on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities.
BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Handbook: Construction.
The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. A Item: 9
118
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities.
Upon completion of construction and stabilization of the site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTs.
RCM WQ-2 City of Lake Forest Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of an Erosion Control Plan in compliance with Article XIII of Chapter
8.30 of the City of Lake Forest Municipal Code from the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee. The Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted to the City of Lake Forest Building Official for approval by September 15 each year for projects under a grading permit. All grading shall be undertaken in accordance with the BMPs for pollution prevention adopted by the City, the City’s NPDES Permit regulating discharges into and from its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and any other conditions, requirements and water quality management plans adopted by the City. Additionally, the project Applicant shall adhere to the erosion and sediment control and water quality system maintenance requirements listed in Section 8.30.154 of the Lake Forest Municipal Code.
RCM WQ-3 Final Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee. The project shall implement project design features identified in the Final WQMP. The Final WQMP shall demonstrate that any proposed on-site
development plan includes BMPs for source control, pollution prevention, site design, low impact development (LID)
implementation, and structural treatment control. BMPs shall be designed and implemented to address 303(d) listed pollutants and retain the project site’s minimum design capture volume and hydromodification volume to ensure that post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration does not exceed predevelopment storm water runoff by more than 10 percent of the 2-year peak flow in accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2009-0030, NPDES Permit No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, also known as the North Orange County MS4 permit. The proposed LID BMPs specified in the Final WQMP shall be incorporated into the grading and development plans submitted to the City of Lake Forest for review and approval. Periodic maintenance of any required BMPs and landscaped areas during project occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the Final WQMP.
RCM WQ-4 Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses to the Lake Forest Director of Public Works, or designee, and the Orange County Item: 9
119
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Flood Control District (OCFCD). The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of the Orange County Hydrology Manual (Orange County Environment Agency 1986) and Orange County Hydrology Manual Addendum No. 1 (Orange County Environment Agency 1996), or subsequent guidance manuals. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall confirm that the on-site storm drains, on-site detention basins, and any other drainage structures are appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the design storm so that the peak flow of stormwater discharge from the project site is less than existing conditions. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall also demonstrate that the detention facilities meet the hydromodification requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County (North Orange County MS4 Permit), Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030 (as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062). In compliance with the
hydromodification requirements, the post-project runoff discharge volume for the 2-year storm shall not exceed that of the predevelopment condition by more than 5 percent, and the time of concentration of post-development runoff for the 2-year storm event shall not be greater than 5 percent less than that of the predevelopment condition. The Director of the City of Lake Forest Public Works Department, or designee, shall ensure that the drainage facilities specified in the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses are incorporated into the final project design.
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.7-13 to 4.7-14)
d. Supporting Explanation: During construction of the proposed project, soil would be exposed and there would be increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. During storm events, erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. To address the potential for erosion, the proposed project would be required to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including BMPs during construction, which would reduce erosion in accordance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit as detailed in RCM WQ-1 The proposed project must further comply with Article XIII of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the preparation and submission of an Erosion Control Plan, and that all grading be undertaken in accordance with BMPs for pollution as detailed in RCM WQ-2. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to implement a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would contain post-construction measures as detailed in RCM WQ-3 and RCM WQ-4. During project operations, the majority of the project site would be covered with impervious surfaces (e.g., asphalt, concrete, an industrial building), which are not subject to erosion. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements as detailed in RCMs WQ-3 and WQ-4 would ensure that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. (DEIR 4.7-13 to
4.7-14)
Item: 9
120
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
16. Threshold 4.7.4: The proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Impact: The proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (DEIR at 4.7-15 to 4.7-16) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.7-15 to 4.7-16) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.7-15 to 4.7-16)
d. Supporting Explanation: Soils with an expansion index of greater than 20 are classified as expansive for building purposes and therefore have a potentially significant impact. Based on laboratory testing completed as part of the Geotechnical Investigation, the soils on the project site were classified to have very low expansion potential (Expansion Index = 12). Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.7-15 to 4.7- 16)
17. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils in the project area. (DEIR at 4.7- 17 to 4.7-18)
a. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this cumulative impact (DEIR at 4.7-17 to 4.7-18) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this cumulative impact. (DEIR at 4.7-17 to 4.7-18)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would have no impact related to: (1) potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map; (2) potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; (3) the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides; (4) a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, or liquefaction or (5) the soils' capability to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact relative to these issues. (DEIR at
4.7-17 to 4.7-18)
Item: 9
121
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
With implementation of project-specific mitigation measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2, which require compliance with applicable recommendations of the projectspecific geotechnical report and applicable codes, regulations, and design standards (MM GEO-1) and the protection of ferrous metal against corrosion (MM GEO-2); and adherence to RCMs WQ-1 through RCM WQ-4, project-level impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Development within the cumulative study area would also be required to comply with recommendations in site-specific geotechnical investigation reports, a SWPPP, and applicable codes, regulations, and design standards including the City of Lake Forest Building Code and CBC, which would reduce potential impacts associated with geologic hazards for those projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to collapsible or corrosive soil, or the soil erosion of topsoil; and the proposed project’s contribution to any cumulative geologic impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required to reduce cumulative impacts. (DEIR at 4.7-17 to 4.7-18)
Each development project in the cumulative study area would be subject to CEQA requirements, mitigation measures, and design review, if applicable. If during this review, a project is determined to have a potential to result in significant impacts to a paleontological resources or unique geologic feature, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the potentially impacted resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures. When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, cumulative impacts on these resources are less than significant. Therefore, implementation of project-specific mitigation measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 would ensure that the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not contribute a cumulatively considerable impact on unique paleontological resources or sites, or unique geologic features. (DEIR at 4.7- 18)
Greenhouse Gas:
18. Threshold 4.8.1: The proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Impact: The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.8-14 to 4.8-16)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.8-14 to 4.8-16) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.8-14 to 4.8-16)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would result in approximately 2,884.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MT CO2e/yr). (DEIR Table 4.8.B., at 4.3-16) This volume includes construction-related GHG emissions which have Item: 9
122
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
been amortized over a 30-year period. The volume of GHG emitted by the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.8.14 to 4.8-16) Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
19. Threshold 4.9.1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.9-9 to 4.9-12) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-9 to 4.9-12) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-9 to 4.9-12)
d. Supporting Explanation: 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. Compliance with the existing hazardous materials regulations and programs described above, including requirements for Hazard Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and Risk Management Plan (RMPs) for facilities handling significant quantities of hazardous materials, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Division of Occupational Safety and Health of California (Cal/OSHA) regulations, CCR Title 8; the Construction General Permit (CGP); and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and State regulations, would ensure that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with the proposed project by ensuring that these materials are properly handled during construction and operation. Therefore, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.9-9 to 4.9-12)
20. Threshold 4.9.2: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Impact: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.9-12 to 4.9-13)
Item: 9
123
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-12 to 4.9-13) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-12 to 4.9-13)
d. Supporting Explanation: The site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) did not identify any recognized environmental condition (REC), historic RECs, or controlled RECs in connection with the existing uses on or surrounding the project site that would result in a potential release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction. No staining or other evidence of leaks were observed on or around the transformers. Based on the construction date of the existing building, these transformers are unlikely to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs were manufactured in the United States between 1930 and 1977.
Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not require the transport of PCBs off site or result in a potential release of PCBs into the environment during construction. Based on the construction date of the existing building, lead-based paint was unlikely to be found at the subject property. Therefore, construction of the proposed project which would include demolition of the existing building would not require the transport of PCBs off site or result in a potential release of PCBs into the environment during construction.
Asbestos containing materials were identified in the existing on-site structures. The demolition of these structures could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Prior to any activities that could disturb suspect ACMs or presumed ACMS (PACMs), these and similar materials should be analyzed for possible asbestos content. If these materials are confirmed to contain asbestos, the construction contractor would be required to comply with applicable United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), OSHA, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), and State and local regulations. Compliance with federal and State regulations pertaining to the handling of ACMs, PACMs, and other hazardous materials would ensure the impacts associated with the associated with the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Although the tenant for the proposed project is not known at this time, should the tenant of the proposed project use hazardous materials, compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations that are intended to prevent the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would ensure protection of human health and the environment during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, compliance with the existing hazardous materials regulations and programs including requirements for HMBPs and RMPs for facilities 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 operation of the proposed project would not result in impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable upset Item: 9
124
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during project operation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.9-12 to 4.9-13)
21. Threshold 4.9.3: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Impact: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR 4.9-14) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-14)
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-14)
d. Supporting Explanation: The closest school to the project site is located approximately 733 feet (0.14 mile) south of the project site. Any hazardous materials associated with construction of the proposed project or future operations on the project site would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local standards and regulations as described above. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.9-14)
22. Threshold 4.9.6: The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact: The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR 4.9-15)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-15)
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-15)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would require temporary lane closures to complete the proposed intersection improvements and may require temporary lane closures on Enterprise Way for the completion of utility connections. However, Item: 9
125
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), which provides uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. Compliance with standards included in the CA MUTCD 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. Impacts related to emergency response and evacuation in the project vicinity would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.9-15)
All site access points and driveway aprons would be designed and constructed to adequate widths for public safety pursuant to the OCFA. Compliance with standard and emergency OCFA and City requirements, such as the size and location of fire access routes and fire truck turning radii, would allow for proper site evacuation, if necessary, during project operations; therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.9-15)
23. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials in the project area. (DEIR 4.9-15)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-16 to 4.9-18) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.9-16 to 4.9-18)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would have no impact related to: (1) a significant hazard to the public or the environment because it is on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; (2) a safety hazard or excessive noise associated with a nearby airport; or (3) a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts associated with a hazardous materials site, excessive noise, or significant risk of loss, injury or death involving a wildland fire. (DEIR at 4.9-16 to 4.9-17) Project compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations including the USEPA, USDOT, RCRA, OSHA, and Cal/OSHA, the California Fire Code, California Health and Safety Code, CCR, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other federal, State, and local regulations would ensure that projectrelated impacts involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or release of hazardous materials into the environment, including hazardous emissions near schools, would be less than significant. 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 Item: 9
126
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
materials into the environment, including hazardous emissions near schools. The project’s contribution to any cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Where hazardous materials are used or located, cumulative development would similarly be required to comply with these existing hazardous material regulations. (DEIR 4.9-17)
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 projects in the cumulative study area. When considered in combination with all development within the cumulative study area, the proposed project would not cumulatively impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact related to emergency response or evacuation plans within the City, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at
4.9-18)
Hydrology and Water Quality:
24. Threshold 4.10.1: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality; would not cause a significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction; would not substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e. swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters; and would not cause an increase in any pollutant for which the receiving water body is already impaired as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list..
Impact: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality; would not cause a significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction; would not substantially degrade water quality by discharge which affects the beneficial uses (i.e. swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters; and would not cause an increase in any pollutant for which the receiving water body is already impaired as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.10-29 to 4.10-31) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-29 to 4.10-31, and 4.10- 39 to 4.10-41)
RCM WQ-1 Construction General Permit. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Construction Contractor shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). This shall include submission of Permit Item: 9
127
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Registration Documents (PRDs), including a Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTs). The Construction Contractor shall provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit.
Project construction shall not be initiated until a WDID is received from the SWRCB and is provided to the City, or designee.
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and submitted vis SMARTs. These include: Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/ waste management, management of non-storm water discharges, run-on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Handbook: Construction.
The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspection/ maintenance/repair activities.
Upon completion of construction and stabilization of the site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTs.
RCM WQ-2 City of Lake Forest Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of an Erosion Control Plan in compliance with Article XIII of Chapter 8.30 of the City of Lake Forest Municipal Code from the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee. The Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted to the City of Lake Forest Building Official for approval by September 15 each year for projects under a grading permit. All grading shall be undertaken in accordance with the BMPs for pollution prevention adopted by the City, the City’s NPDES Permit regulating discharges into and from its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and any other conditions, requirements and water quality management plans adopted by the City. Additionally, the project Applicant shall adhere to the erosion and sediment control and water quality system maintenance requirements listed in Section 8.30.154 of the Lake Forest Municipal Code.
RCM WQ-3 Final Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee. The project shall implement project design Item: 9
128
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
features identified in the Final WQMP. The Final WQMP shall demonstrate that any proposed on-site development plan includes BMPs for source control, pollution prevention, site design, low impact development (LID) implementation, and structural treatment control.
BMPs shall be designed and implemented to address 303(d) listed pollutants and retain the project site’s minimum design capture volume and hydromodification volume to ensure that post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration does not exceed predevelopment storm water runoff by more than 10 percent of the 2-year peak flow in accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2009-0030, NPDES Permit No.
CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, also known as the North Orange County MS4 permit. The proposed LID BMPs specified in the Final WQMP shall be incorporated into the grading and development plans submitted to the City of Lake Forest for review and approval. Periodic maintenance of any required BMPs and landscaped areas during project occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the Final WQMP.
RCM WQ-4 Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses to the Lake Forest Director of Public Works, or designee, and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of the Orange County Hydrology Manual (Orange County Environment Agency 1986) and Orange County Hydrology Manual Addendum No. 1 (Orange County Environment Agency 1996), or subsequent guidance manuals.
The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall confirm that the onsite storm drains, on-site detention basins, and any other drainage structures are appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the design storm so that the peak flow of stormwater discharge from the project site is less than existing conditions. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall also demonstrate that the detention facilities meet the hydromodification requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County (North Orange County MS4 Permit), Order R8- 2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030 (as amended by Order No. R8- 2010-0062). In compliance with the hydromodification requirements, the post-project runoff discharge volume for the 2-year storm shall not exceed that of the predevelopment condition by more than 5 percent, and the time of concentration of post-development runoff for the 2-year storm event shall not be greater than 5 percent less than that of the predevelopment condition. The Director of the City of Lake Forest Public Works Department, or designee, shall ensure that the drainage facilities specified in the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses are incorporated into the final project design.
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-29 to 4.10-31)
Item: 9
129
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project will be required to implement construction BMPs during construction activities, as specified in RCM WQ-1.
Construction BMPs would include, but are not limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site as well as Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Additionally, the proposed project must comply with Article XIII of Chapter 8.30 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the preparation and submission of an Erosion Control Plan and that all grading be undertaken in accordance with BMPs for pollution prevention adopted by the City as detailed in RCM WQ-2. Adherence to these measures would ensure construction impacts related to surface water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and surface water quality would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-29 to 4.10-30)
Development of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site, which could decrease on-site infiltration. The proposed project would also be required to prepare a Final WQMP, as detailed in RCM WQ-3, consistent with the requirement of the City’s MS4 permit. The Final WQMP would specify the Site Design, Source Control, LID, and Treatment Control BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. Additionally, as specified in RCM WQ-4, a Final Hydrology Study would be required to be prepared, which would demonstrate that the final design of the proposed project meets the hydromodification requirements. Compliance with the requirements of the City and the North Orange County MS4 Permit, as detailed in RCM WQ-3 and RCM WQ-4, would ensure that the project would not increase any pollutant for which the receiving water bodies are already impaired as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list, and that the proposed project would not result in discharge which would affect the beneficial uses of Serrano Creek or result in an increase in any pollutant for which Serrano Creek is already impaired. Therefore, operational impacts to water quality would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-30 to 4.10-31)
25. Threshold 4.10.2: The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); and would not adversely change the rate, direction or flow of groundwater.
Impact: The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); and would not adversely change the rate, direction or flow of groundwater.
Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.10-31 to 4.10-32) Item: 9
130
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-31 to 4.10-32) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-31 to 4.10-32)
d. Supporting Explanation: Groundwater was not encountered during explorations to depths of more than 30 feet below the existing grade on the project site. The proposed project would require excavation to a maximum depth of 6 feet below the existing grade; therefore, groundwater dewatering would not be required during construction of the proposed project and construction of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies, interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, or adversely change the rate, direction or flow of groundwater. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-31) Water supply for operation of the proposed project would likely involve the use of both surface and groundwater sources for use in restrooms and for irrigation of landscaped areas. According to water demand factors included in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) emissions model, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 107,410 gallons per day or 120 acre feet per year of water. The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan indicates the IRWD has sufficient water supplies to meet water demands through 2045, including during multiple dry years. Therefore, the proposed project’s water needs would not contribute to a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies. Due to the presence of dense engineered fill soils comprised of silty sands and clayey sands that possess very poor infiltration characteristics, the project site is not a significant source of groundwater recharge. Therefore, the increase in impervious surface area that would result from the development of the proposed project would not significantly decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management, or adversely change the rate, direction or flow of groundwater. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-31 to 4.10-32)
26. Threshold 4.10.3(i): The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; and would not deposit sediment and debris materials within existing channels obstructing flows.
Impact: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; and would not deposit sediment and debris materials within existing channels obstructing flows with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at
4.10-32 to 4.10-33)
Item: 9
131
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: RCMs WQ-1 through WQ-4, discussed above, are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-32 to 4.10-33) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-32 to 4.10-33)
d. Supporting Explanation: During a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate on site during construction of the proposed project. As required by RCM WQ-1, construction BMPs will be identified and implemented to reduce impacts on water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. The proposed project must further comply with Article XIII of Chapter 8.30 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the preparation and submission of an Erosion Control Plan and as detailed in RCM WQ2. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and the project would not deposit sediment and debris materials within existing channels obstructing flows.
Construction impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation and deposition of sediment and debris within existing channels would be less than significant, and no mitigation is . (DEIR at 4.10-32)
The underground detention systems included in the project’s design would be used for stormwater control and treatment in compliance with the requirements of the North Orange County MS4 Permit as detailed in RCM WQ-3 and RCM WQ-4; therefore, operational impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-33)
27. Threshold 4.10.3(ii): The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; and would not exceed the capacity of a channel and cause overflow during design storm conditions.
Impact: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; and would not exceed the capacity of a channel and cause overflow during design storm conditions with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.10-33) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: RCMs WQ-3 and WQ-4 discussed above are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-33) Item: 9
132
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-33)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed drainage facilities would be appropriately sized to detain stormwater runoff so that with implementation of BMPs, on-site flooding would not occur. Therefore, with implementation of BMPs including LID techniques and hydromodification requirements as required by the North Orange County MS4 Permit, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would exceed the capacity of a channel and cause overflow or result in flooding on- or off site during design storm conditions.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10- 33)
28. Threshold 4.10.3(iii): The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; and would not exceed the capacity of a channel and cause overflow during design storm conditions.
Impact: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; and would not exceed the capacity of a channel and cause overflow during design storm conditions with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.10-33 to 4.10-34) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: RCMs WQ-1 through WQ-4 discussed above are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-33 to 4.10-34) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-33 to 4.10-34)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would include three linear modular wetland systems and three underground detention systems to reduce site discharge during the 100-year, 24-hour peak runoff rate by 47 percent. The proposed drainage facilities would be designed in compliance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit as detailed in RCM WQ-3 and RCM WQ-4. The proposed drainage facilities and BMPs needed to accommodate stormwater runoff would be appropriately sized to retain and gradually release stormwater runoff such that drainage facility capacity would not be exceeded during a design storm. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of planned or existing stormwater drainage systems, or the capacity of a channel. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-33 to 4.10-34)
Item: 9
133
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
In accordance with RCM WQ-1, the proposed project would be required to identify and implement BMPs to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff as a result of construction activities. In accordance with RCM WQ-2, the proposed project must comply with Article XIII of Chapter 8.30 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the preparation and submission of an Erosion Control Plan and that all grading be undertaken in accordance with BMPs for pollution prevention. With implementation of RCM WQ-1 and WQ-2, construction-related impacts related to polluted stormwater runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-33 to 4.10-34)
With implementation of RCM WQ-3 and RCM WQ-4, requiring compliance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit, the implementation LID techniques, and the incorporation of operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern, the proposed project would not discharge substantial sources of polluted runoff from the project site during project operation. Therefore, operational impacts related to polluted stormwater runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-33 to 4.10-34)
29. Threshold 4.10.4: The proposed project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone; would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and would not cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Impact: The proposed project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone; would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and would not cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.10-35) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-35)
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-35)
d. Supporting Explanation: The project site is located in Zone X, which is identified as an area of minimal flood hazard. Therefore, the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation due to flood hazard. There are no dam inundation areas in the City of Lake Forest. Therefore, the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants due to dam inundation. The project site is over 10 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 700 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants due to a tsunami, cause inundation by a tsunami, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death as a result of a tsunami. Additionally, there are no nearby enclosed bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation due to seiche or cause inundation by a seiche. As the project site is not located within a Item: 9
134
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
flood, tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation area, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the release of pollutants from a flood, dam inundation, tsunami, or seiche.
Additionally, the proposed project is not located within a levee flood protection zone as defined by the State of California Department of Water Resources; therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of a levee failure. Furthermore, the topography of the project site is primarily flat with no steep slopes with loose soil, earth, or debris. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause inundation by mudflow. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-35)
30. Threshold 4.10.5: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan; and would not have an impact on groundwater that is inconsistent with a groundwater management plan prepared by the water agencies with the responsibility for groundwater management.
Impact: Construction and operation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan; and would not have an impact on groundwater that is inconsistent with a groundwater management plan prepared by the water agencies with the responsibility for groundwater management with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.10-35 to 4.10-37) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: RCM WQ-1 through RCM WQ-4 discussed above are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-35 to 4.10-37) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-35 to 4.10-37)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would comply with existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, including the CGP and North Orange County MS4 Permit, and would implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff as detailed in RCM WQ-1, RCM WQ-2, RCM WQ-3, and RCM WQ-4. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not degrade or alter water quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). Construction and operational impacts related to a conflict with the Basin Plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-36) The groundwater table is expected to exist at a depth in excess of 30 feet at the project site. The proposed project would require excavation to a maximum depth of 6 feet below the existing grade. Therefore, it is not anticipated that groundwater dewatering would be required during construction of the proposed project. In addition, the project site is not a significant source of groundwater recharge.
Item: 9
135
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-36) As detailed in RCM WQ-3, compliance with the North Orange County MS4 Permit, the implementation of LID techniques, and the incorporation of operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern would ensure that the proposed project would not discharge substantial sources of polluted runoff from the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan prepared by the water agencies with the responsibility for groundwater management. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-35 to 4.10-37)
31. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality in the project area. (DEIR at 4.10-37 to 4.10-38)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-37 to 4.10-38) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.10-37 to 4.10-38)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would not alter drainage patterns in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows; therefore, there would be no cumulatively considerable impact on flood flows resulting from changes to drainage patterns. New development and redevelopment can result in increased stormwater runoff and increased urban pollutants in stormwater runoff from project sites.
Consistent with the proposed project, each project in the cumulative study area is required to include BMPs to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality in compliance with local ordinances and plans adopted to comply with requirements of the various NPDES permits including the CGP, the North Orange County MS4 Permit, and the City of Lake Forest Municipal Code. Each project in the cumulative study area would be required to develop a SWPPP, erosion and sediment control plans, a WQMP, and a hydrology study, and would be evaluated individually to determine appropriate BMPs and treatment measures to reduce impacts to hydrology and surface water quality. Because the proposed project and projects within the cumulative study area would be required to comply with applicable NPDES requirements and would include BMPs to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff and pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.10-37 to
4.10-38)
Noise:
32. Threshold 4.13.1: The proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Item: 9
136
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; would not result in a 3 dBA CNEL increase in noise when existing noise levels are between 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL; would not result in a 1.5 dBA CNEL increase in noise when existing noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL; would not exceed the stationary source noise criteria for the City of Lake Forest as specified by the exterior noise standards set forth in the Noise Control Chapter (11.16) of the Lake Forest Municipal Code; and during construction, would not exceed 80 dBA Leq (1-hour) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
Impact: The proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; would not result in a 3 dBA CNEL increase in noise when existing noise levels are between 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL; would not result in a 1.5 dBA CNEL increase in noise when existing noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL; would not exceed the stationary source noise criteria for the City of Lake Forest as specified by the exterior noise standards set forth in the Noise Control Chapter (11.16) of the Lake Forest Municipal Code; and during construction, would not exceed 80 dBA Leq (1-hour) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.13-17 to 4.13-19)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following regulatory compliance measure is applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.13-17 to 4.13-19, and 4.13-23) RCM NOI-1 City of Lake Forest Municipal Code, Section 11.16.060(D). During construction, construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on legal City of Lake Forest holidays, without a specific exemption issued by the City of Lake Forest.
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.13-17 to 4.13-19)
d. Supporting Explanation: Construction noise levels, when the highest reference noise level is operating from the center of primary construction activity nearest the sensitive receiver location, would average 71 A-weighted decibel equivalent continuous sound level (dBA Leq) at the sensitive receiver locations, and therefore would not exceed the daytime construction noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq at any receiver location. Compliance with RCM NOI-1 would ensure that construction activities would occur during 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.13- 17)
Item: 9
137
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Project-related traffic noise would generate the greatest increase of 3.3 dBA along Enterprise Way. There are no noise sensitive uses along this roadway segment, and the resultant noise level would be well below 65 A-weighted decibel day-night noise level (dBA Ldn). All other roadway segments would be less than a 1 dBA increase. (DEIR Table 4.13.H, at 4.13.19) Noise level increases below 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Furthermore, off-site traffic noise level increases from the project would not result in a 3 dBA CNEL increase in noise at noise sensitive uses when existing noise levels are between 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL or a 1.5 dBA CNEL increase in noise levels when existing noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, project-related traffic would have a less than significant impact on off-site sensitive receptors, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.13-17 to 4.13-18)
The noise model considered site topography, the shielding provided by the proposed on-site building, and a planned 16-foot-high, 60-foot-long wall, which would be located at the eastern end of the loading docks, west of the proposed trash enclosure. The hourly noise levels associated with the proposed on-site heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, trash bin emptying activities, parking lot activities, and truck deliveries and loading and unloading activities were modeled at the surrounding sensitive receptors and would range from 50.0 dBA Leq to 52.7 dBA Leq. Therefore, the project would not exceed the stationary source noise criteria for the City of Lake Forest as specified by the exterior noise standards set forth in the Noise Control Chapter (11.16) of the Lake Forest Municipal Code.
Because these levels would be below the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards, project operations would result in less than significant noise impacts, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.13-18)
33. Threshold 4.13.2: The proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and would not exceed the applicable standards from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or Caltrans vibration limits.
Impact: The proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and would not exceed the applicable standards from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or Caltrans vibration limits with compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.13-20 to 4.13-21)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: The following regulatory compliance measure is applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.13-20 to 4.13-21, and 4.13-23 to 4.13-24)
RCM NOI-2 Pre-Construction Vibration Assessment. After a specific project equipment list has been determined and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following actions shall be implemented:
1. A qualified structural engineer, as approved by the Director of Community Development, or designee shall identify all structures that are located within the distances established in Table 2 of Item: 9
138
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Section 11.16.090 of the City’s Municipal Code and that have the potential to be affected by ground-borne vibration originating from the construction; and
2. A qualified acoustical engineer shall compile a list of proposed construction equipment and compare to the City's accepted vibration criteria. If it is determined that the proposed equipment would generate vibration levels below the City's standard of 0.3 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV), no further vibration assessment is necessary. However, if vibration levels would potentially exceed the City's standard of 0.3 in/sec PPV, the Project Applicant shall develop a Vibration Monitoring and Construction Contingency Plan for approval by the Director of Community Development, or designee, to ensure that vibration levels would not exceed the City's accepted vibration damage criteria of 0.3 in/sec PPV. If a Vibration Monitoring and Construction Contingency Plan is deemed necessary, monitoring of vibration during initial construction activities shall be required.
Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. The Vibration Monitoring and Construction Contingency Plan, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development or designee, shall include the following items as necessary:
• Identification of structures where monitoring would be conducted;
• A vibration monitoring schedule;
• Defined structure-specific vibration limits;
• Photographic, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions; and
• Identification of construction contingencies for when vibration levels approach the limits.
When vibration levels approach the limits specified in Section
11.16.090 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction shall be suspended and contingencies identified in the approved Vibration Monitoring and Construction Contingency Plan shall be
implemented as necessary to lower vibration levels, which could include shielding or protecting the affected building from potential vibration impacts as a possible alternative to changing construction methods.
c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.13-20 to 4.13-21)
d. Supporting Explanation: If large construction equipment with a reference vibration level of 0.089 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is used within 8 feet of the industrial buildings at 26180 and 26190 Enterprise Way, they would Item: 9
139
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
experience vibration levels of up to 0.312 PPV (in/sec). These vibration levels would exceed the
0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. However, with implementation of RCM NOI-2, which details construction vibration assessments pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 11.16.090, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with the requirements of Municipal Code section 11.16.090 would ensure that the project would meet the applicable Caltrans vibration standards. No mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.13-20) Because the proposed stationary equipment would not generate perceptible vibration levels, the proposed project would not result in vibration impacts related to on-site stationary sources. Structures greater than 20 feet from the roadways along which project vehicles would be traveling would experience vibration levels below the standard of 0.3 in/sec PPV. Therefore, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on site or on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.13-20 to 4.13-21).
34. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to noise in the project area. a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.13-21 to DEIR at 4.13-23) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.13-21 to DEIR at 4.13-23)
d. Supporting Explanation: Noise levels dissipate exponentially with distance from the noise source; therefore, noise impacts are generally localized. Hourly noise levels generated by operational activities from Western Realco Projects 1 and 2 were modeled at the closest off-site land uses and would not approach thresholds levels at the nearby sensitive uses; therefore, implementation of the proposed project, when evaluated in combination with Western Realco Projects 1 and 2, would not contribute to cumulatively considerable construction-related noise impacts in excess of standards established in a general plan or noise ordinance. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable operational stationary noise impact in excess of standards established in a general plan or noise ordinance. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable operational traffic noise impact in excess of standards established in a general plan or noise ordinance. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable construction vibration impact. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable on-site stationary source-induced vibration impact. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable traffic-induced vibration impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable noise impact, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.13-21 to 4.13- 23)
Item: 9
140
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
Population and Housing:
35. Threshold 4.14.1: The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
Impact: The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at
4.14-6 to 4.14-8)
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures area applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.14-6 to 4.14-8) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.14-6 to 4.14-8)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would provide short-term construction jobs over an approximately 12-month period. The construction jobs would be temporary and would be specific to the variety of construction activities. Given the relatively short duration of construction, project-related construction workers would not be expected to relocate their places of residence as a consequence of working on the project site; therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with inducing substantial population growth or demand for housing through increased construction employment.
Because the proposed project does not include residential uses, it would not result in direct population growth. Project development would generate approximately 187 new jobs in Lake Forest, representing approximately 17 percent and less than one percent of the estimated job growth estimated in Lake Forest and Orange County, respectively. Given that approximately 1,800 and 64,100 people are currently unemployed in Lake Forest and Orange County, respectively, it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of these positions would be filled by existing City or County residents. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase to the City’s population resulting from persons moving to work at the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the project site would be developed consistent with its land use and zoning designations. The proposed project would be connected to existing municipal utility infrastructure and would not include the construction of new roadways or infrastructure beyond that could serve areas outside the project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to the growth of the City’s or region’s population either directly through the development of housing or indirectly through the extension of infrastructure. (DEIR at 4.14-6 to 4.14-8)
36. Cumulative Impact: Project development, together with cumulative projects, would not result in significant impacts related to population and housing in the project area. (DEIR at 4.14-8 to 4.14-9)
Item: 9
141
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures area applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.14-8 to 4.14-9) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.14-8 to 4.14-9)
d. Supporting Explanation: The project-specific direct and indirect effects relative to unplanned growth would be less than significant. All projects in the cumulative study area would be required to evaluate potential impacts on population and housing and implement mitigation measures, as needed. Since all projects within the cumulative study area would be required to implement appropriate mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other development in the City, would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on population and housing. Cumulative impacts relative to population and housing would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR at 4.14-8 to 4.14-9) Public Services:
37. Threshold 4.15.1(i): The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.
Impact: The proposed project would not generate the need for new or physically altered fire facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts relative to an acceptable service ratio, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.15-10 to 4.15-12) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures area applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.15-10 to 4.15-12) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.15-10 to 4.15-12)
d. Supporting Explanation: The proposed project would replace an existing use of similar square footage on the same site and is surrounded by buildings of similar land use type and intensity. Therefore, the proposed project’s increase in demand for new or expanded fire protection services would be negligible. The proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and does not represent unplanned growth given that the project site would be developed consistent with its existing land use and zoning designations. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce a substantial increase in population over that which was envisioned in the Item: 9
142
55136.00536\44866765.3
55136.00461\45152173.3
build-out of the City’s General Plan and would not result in a demand for more fire protection services beyond what was anticipated and planned for.
Adherence to existing laws would ensure that the proposed project would not have a significant construction-related impact on fire protection service from the OCFA; therefore, construction-related impacts to fire protection would be minimized and the provision of and/or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts) would not be required. In order to meet OCFA standards and to comply with the California Fire Code (in effect at the time of the application for the building permit), the proposed project would install fire sprinklers, seven fire hydrants, and appropriate and adequate emergency access. Once operational, project compliance with requirements set forth in the California Fire Code would provide fire protection for people and structures, as well as emergency medical services. Upon review of the proposed project, the OCFA has indicated that the project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services; therefore, the proposed project would not generate the need for new or physically altered fire facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain an acceptable service ratio, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR 4.15-10 to 4.15-12)
38. Threshold 4.15.1(ii): The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection.
Impact: The proposed project would not generate the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts that impact an acceptable service ratio, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 4.15-12 to 4.15-14) a. Finding: No changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) b. Applicable Regulatory Compliance Measures: No regulatory compliance measures area applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.15-12 to 4.15-14) c. Applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are applicable to this topical area. (DEIR at 4.15-12 to 4.15-14)
d. Supporting Explanation: To minimize criminal trespassing, the project site (construction areas) would be fenced, and access points would be locked during non-construction hours. The project site is located in an area already patrolled by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD); therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a demand for additional police services or significantly impact existing service ratios or response times.
The proposed project would replace an existing use of similar square footage on the same site and is surrounded by buildings of similar land use type and intensity; Item: 9
143