[1:42] All right. I hereby call the regular meeting of the

[1:46] Planning Commission to order and welcome everybody. This is probably

[1:49] one of the most full houses we've seen in quite

[1:52] some time. So thank you all for coming. Please stand

[1:54] for the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Grayed us tonight. Do

[2:02] you lead us tonight. I pledge allegiance to the fight

[2:08] of the United States of America. And to the Republic

[2:12] for witch it stands, a nation under God, indivisible with

[2:17] liberty and justice for all. Thank you, maybe seated. Will

[2:27] you please call the roll. Commissioner Martin. Here. Commissioner Peace.

[2:32] President. Commissioner Gray. Present. Vice chair divorce. Present. And chair

[2:38] Peters. Present. All right. Secretary, have we received any

[2:48] request to speak on non - agendaised items? We have

[2:51] not. All right. Moving on to the consent calendar. We

[2:55] have one item on the consent calendar that needs approval.

[2:59] May have a motion to approve the consent calendar.

[3:11] All right, we have a motion by commissioner gray, a

[3:14] second by commissioner Martin. Please record your vote.

[3:28] Hi, I believe that that passes. That motion passes unanimously.

[3:35] Unanimously, thank you. All right. Moving on to the public

[3:44] hearing item. We have item number 6. 1 planning application

[3:50] number 20 - 103 Baker Street Warehouse Project. A proposal

[3:57] to develop two warehouse buildings, totaling 1, 451, 000, or

[4:03] 451 square feet and related site improvements on the approximate

[4:08] 140 acre site located at the intersection of Baker Street

[4:13] and Pearce Street. The public hearing is now open and

[4:18] the time is 602. Are there any disclosures from commissioners.

[4:24] No. Secretary, do you have proof of publication that notices

[4:30] as required by law have been given? Yes, ma'am. Did

[4:34] we have the complete file of exhibits correspondence and other

[4:37] documents? Yes, we do. Are there any written communications on

[4:41] this matter. Yes, we've received 20 written communications. They were

[4:45] entered into the public record and distributed to the planning

[4:48] commission and to the public. All right. City staff, please

[4:53] introduce yourself and provide a staff report on this item.

[4:58] Thank you, Chair. And good evening, commissioners. My name is

[5:00] Nancy Winn, Planning Manager with the Community Development Department. The

[5:04] item before you tonight is planning application number 2020 -

[5:07] 103. Which is for the industrial project known as the

[5:11] Baker Street Warehouse Project. So the project site is located

[5:16] at the intersection of Baker and Peer Streets. The site

[5:20] is currently has two different industrial zones. It has M1,

[5:24] which is limited manufacturing, as well as M2, which is

[5:27] general manufacturing. So the project site is currently vacant and

[5:32] undeveloped and encompasses approximately 140 acres. There's our three, so

[5:38] a few different project components. So the first is the

[5:42] warehouse development, which would be 60, about 65 acres, seven

[5:46] acres would be for offsite improvements and a little over

[5:49] 33 acres would be restored for conservation purposes. There's also

[5:52] about a two and a half acre buffer zone in

[5:55] between the warehouse and the rest, the conservation area. So

[5:58] this exhibit here kind of shows those different various components

[6:02] with the red being the warehouse development, the green being

[6:05] the conservation area, and then the oranges are the off

[6:08] - site improvements. And then the sliberal of purple right

[6:11] in between the orange and the green that will act

[6:13] as the buffer zone. So the proposed project is, as

[6:19] I mentioned, an industrial development with two warehouse buildings totaling

[6:23] approximately one million square feet. So the project includes several

[6:27] planning application requests, which I've listed here, and I'll run

[6:30] through quickly. So there's a zone change to change two

[6:34] of the M1 parcels into M2 for zoning consistency. There's

[6:39] a tentative parcel map associated with the project into two

[6:45] parcels. Design review to establish the design for the buildings

[6:49] as well as the project site. The CUP to allow

[6:52] M2 uses within 300 feet of a residential zone, a

[6:56] second CUP request to exceed the 45 - foot building

[7:00] height. And lastly, a development agreement or a DA to

[7:04] specify fee contributions among other items that are above and

[7:07] beyond the development requirements. So this is the site plan,

[7:13] which shows the building one along the property frontage on

[7:17] Peer Street and building two right behind it to the

[7:20] rear of the project site. So the project site would

[7:22] have ample landscaping throughout the site, including a perimeter landscaping

[7:28] that would include large 24 and 36 inch box trees.

[7:34] So as I mentioned in my previous slide, the project

[7:37] is requesting a zone change. Um, in it specifically only

[7:41] affecting two of the M1 parcels, um, so if you

[7:44] look at the current zoning exhibit, it's the, um, lighter

[7:48] blue. And then adjacent, you can see the existing M2.

[7:52] So if you look at the proposed zoning, it will

[7:54] all end up being M2 just for consistent zoning throughout

[7:58] the project site. The general plan LEN uses as a

[8:01] nation remains the scene. It would still be limited industrial.

[8:05] And the project does not involve any other land use

[8:07] changes to the surrounding, um, properties, including any of the

[8:10] residential zone properties. So the next few slides are renderings

[8:18] of the, um, proposed design. So the, this one shows

[8:21] the, um. Kind of an overview of both buildings or

[8:24] the project site as you're driving along baker. Baker street,

[8:29] excuse me. And then this is building one, um, also

[8:33] showing the view from Baker Street. And then of course

[8:36] we have building two. In conjunction with the design review.

[8:44] The project is requesting a parking reduction, um, which staff

[8:47] is supportive of. Because it, uh, it's supported by a

[8:52] parking study. And the parking study, um, reveals several things

[8:56] in order to come to the conclusion that the proposed

[8:58] parking rate would be appropriate. So there was comparison of

[9:02] the cities, um, warehousing parking requirement against a nationwide average.

[9:07] Also comparison with our surrounding, um, neighboring cities that immediately

[9:10] adjacent one as well as more regional. The cities that

[9:13] have, um, more warehousing developments. And then lastly, there was

[9:18] also surveys at three similar scale warehouse buildings. And I

[9:22] find an interest to staff founding interesting enough that the

[9:24] survey counts showed that there is actually a pretty big

[9:28] surplus of parking available. So for that reason, um, we

[9:31] don't anticipate a parking impact. To occur here. But the

[9:36] project does include a condition of approval to address any

[9:41] potential, if there are any potential parking impacts in the

[9:43] future. Okay. So as for the two CUPs, as I

[9:48] mentioned, the first one is to allow M2 uses within

[9:50] a 300 feet of a residential zone, um, which is

[9:53] measured from property lying to property line. So even though

[9:57] the project is adjacent to a resident ja zone, the

[10:00] properties are currently undeveloped, but nonetheless, the project's building especially

[10:04] the loading docks as well as the parking areas have

[10:06] been designed to create a buffer between the project and

[10:10] the existing and future residential uses. And then the second

[10:14] CUP is to exceed the 45 foot building height. So

[10:17] both buildings are requesting to increase the height due to

[10:21] the design. And the increased height you'll see is primarily

[10:25] at the front of the buildings, um, which features an

[10:28] enhanced corner design that helps, um, helps and better guide

[10:32] visitors to the main entrances. So the project, so the

[10:40] city council adopted a good naper policy. And that was

[10:43] specifically in response to some of the large - scale

[10:45] warehousing projects that the inland empire region has been experiencing.

[10:50] And so those project was reviewed for compliance with the

[10:53] good neighbor policy, just to back up really quickly. This

[10:57] policy only applies to buildings that are over 250, 000

[11:02] square feet. So in this case, it only applies to

[11:04] building two, because building two is 788, 000 versus the

[11:08] other one is only 212. So some of the compliance

[11:14] features of building to, the loading docs, the parking areas,

[11:18] the truck bays are located over a thousand feet from

[11:21] the nearest residences. The loading docs truck bays are also

[11:27] oriented away from the residences. So they don't face the

[11:29] residency on the opposite other side of the building. There's

[11:32] multiple access points, um, with three lanes each. So they're

[11:36] just going to provide adequate onset queuing to prevent any,

[11:39] um, spillover traffic unto the public streets. Um, as I

[11:44] mentioned earlier, perimeter landscaping with large 24 and 36 inch

[11:47] box trees as well as a screening wall. And then

[11:50] of course the condition of approval included to make sure

[11:53] that, um, going into plant trick pride to issuance of

[11:57] building permits that the project continues to comply with the

[12:00] good neighborhood policy. So I just want to quickly touch

[12:07] on the tentative parcel map associated with the project. So

[12:10] as I said earlier, the 10 existing parcels that the

[12:15] warehouse buildings are going to be developed on. They're all

[12:17] going to be merge or consolidated into two parcels. Parcel

[12:20] one and parcel two with one building on each parcel.

[12:24] And of course the, um, driveways as well as the

[12:27] parking lot. There'll reciprocal axis or share to access agreement

[12:30] would be required. And lastly, the project concludes, like I

[12:38] said, a DA, her development agreement, um, the developer has

[12:40] agreed to contribute nine million dollars to the city, which

[12:44] would go towards future roadway improvements, um, and by the

[12:46] way, the project would be required to do street improvements

[12:50] along their project frontage. So the nine million dollars is

[12:53] in addition to that. Exchange for the contribution, the project

[12:58] receives, um, longer entitlement period. So instead of the typical

[13:01] two year that's in the menu super code, the project

[13:04] would have seven years. And then, um, the cities development

[13:09] impact fees are not applicable to the project. So I

[13:15] know the wording here is kind of squeeze and small,

[13:18] um, but staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt

[13:21] the following resolutions and recommend that the city council certify

[13:24] the project's environmental impact report as well as approve the

[13:28] project's applications requests. So that concludes my staff presentation, but

[13:32] the applicant has also prepared a presentation for you tonight.

[13:38] All right. Thank you very much.

[14:05] There we go. Better now. Honorable chair, vice chair and

[14:09] commissioners. My name is Daned Planjin. I'm with EPD solutions

[14:13] and our team's been representing ecosystem investment partners. Since the

[14:17] beginning of the Baker Street project. This entitlement has taken

[14:21] six and a half years. And it wouldn't be possible

[14:23] without all the support from staff. Um, everyone in every

[14:27] department here has been along our side helping us make

[14:30] sure that we're bringing forth the best possible project possible.

[14:34] We'd also like to extend our appreciation for the support

[14:37] from the Riverside County Conservation Authority in the California Fish

[14:41] and Wildlife for their support throughout this process. Ecosystem investment

[14:50] partners is a private equity real estate firm that supports

[14:54] ecological restoration projects. Their vision is clear. Balanced biological restoration

[14:59] and conservation with e - commerce. They're currently have 55

[15:04] active mitigation banks and restoration projects across 13 states. And

[15:09] since 2019, EIP is partnered with the RCA to assemble

[15:13] land with critical conservation value alongside surplus land for development.

[15:18] The baker project is the poster child for this initiative.

[15:29] As many may not know, EIP has been in this

[15:31] community for a lot longer than the baker project, Riverside

[15:34] legacy, also known as Walker Canyon, was an initiative brought

[15:38] forward by EIP. Ultimately 240 acres were put into conservation.

[15:44] Um, with the RCA.

[15:54] This project also has been no small feat in terms

[15:57] of the acquisition and the assemblage that was required as

[16:00] part of the project. In total 15 different parcels were

[16:03] acquired. The 10 outlined in red is the development footprint.

[16:08] And the five outlined in yellow are those that have

[16:10] already been conveyed to the RCA for conservation and perpetuity.

[16:21] The land use is limited industrial. The project is consistent

[16:25] with the general plan. The zoning is M1 and M2

[16:28] split. The project is proposing a change of zone to

[16:32] M2. And this is really to bring in the best

[16:34] possible use we can. Um, the full range of industrial

[16:37] and manufacturing use is that are accessible under the M2.

[16:42] Possible growth and employment. Triple A credit tenant. Also building

[16:46] specifications. Today's day and age is requiring the best out

[16:50] there in the industry. And we want to make sure

[16:52] that this project is able to provide for that. Also

[16:55] the M2 opens up for more skilled uses that will

[16:57] allow for the highs paying jobs. A

[17:07] little bit of history on this property. It's been industrial.

[17:11] It has had an industrial land use for more than

[17:13] 30 years. And that there are known industrial plan uses

[17:17] that date back to pre - city and corporation on

[17:20] the site. It's also included within the business district of

[17:23] the city's general plan. The purpose of that general plan

[17:27] is to encourage industrial and commercial uses with sensitivity to

[17:30] surrounding areas such as floodways, wetlands and floodplains.

[17:43] The site has a lot of existing challenges that we've

[17:46] had to work through over the past six and a

[17:48] half years. Two of those are the Southern California Edison

[17:51] easements as well as the topography of the site. Outlined

[17:54] on your screen is an exhibit of our site plan,

[17:57] which shows two of the SE easements in high voltage

[18:00] utility lines that run through the site. The first is

[18:04] a 330 foot SE easement and utilitylines that run perpendicular

[18:08] between building one and building two. Also the IV Glen

[18:13] high voltage steel poles run along the property's frontage of

[18:16] Baker. Southern California Edison has strict requirements for development within

[18:21] these areas that have posed challenges for us that we've

[18:24] had to work through to make sure that the plan

[18:26] works. Additionally, the topography. And actually through the design process,

[18:31] this constraint is actually proven to be a benefit. And

[18:34] that the site slopes, uh, very extreme to the top

[18:38] of a hill. And through our design, uh, the area

[18:40] outlined in red is actually going to be a retaining

[18:43] wall condition at the rear of the property. That's the

[18:46] approximate location that the property will not be visible from

[18:50] any of the residential communities to the rear of the

[18:53] property. So as you head west towards Pear Street, it

[18:57] comes back to grade. As you go away from Peer

[19:00] Street down Baker, the slope comes up and ultimately within

[19:04] that area, it's not visible.

[19:14] As mentioned, there is a large biological component part of

[19:18] this project. EIP is spent. Approximately 3. 75 million dollars.

[19:24] In terms of tying up this area of land. And

[19:27] this area's already been conveyed to the RCA for conservation

[19:30] and perpetuity. The project helps the city of Lake Elsinore

[19:37] achieve the MSHCP reserve assembly requirements. And contributes to the

[19:41] wide area plan for the ultimate conservation goal of 500,

[19:44] 000 acres. There's different repairing and riverine habitat that will

[19:50] be addressed through the project. That includes three vernal pools.

[19:54] Two, which will be expanded as well as several sensitive

[19:56] plants that will either be protected in place or restored

[20:00] through the conservation area. The property will

[20:10] use baker and nickels to the I - 215 freeway.

[20:13] The city - led current general planned update includes Baker

[20:18] and Nichols within the circulation element for truck access.

[20:29] So related to traffic generation throughout a lot of our

[20:33] community outreach meetings that we've had, a lot of conversations

[20:36] that I've been personally involved in, inquiring about the use

[20:39] that we're proposing concerns related to the traffic generation. And

[20:43] I guess questions as to why we aren't proposing a

[20:46] mixed use or a residential compatibility there. Um, other than

[20:50] it not being allowed within the zoning designation and the

[20:53] general plan, um, I think it was interesting that we

[20:57] went ahead and shared this. So this is a daily

[20:59] trips comparison by use. The baker project is on the

[21:03] far left. And as you can see, we did a

[21:06] comparison against other uses that could potentially go on the

[21:10] site such as business park, medium residential, commercial and mixed

[21:14] use. As you can see, the industrial project generates far

[21:18] fewer or the least amount of trips out of any

[21:20] of the other alternative uses that could be considered.

[21:32] As Nancy mentioned, there's certain offsite improvements that the project's

[21:35] committed to making the build out of Baker Street along

[21:37] the frontage, which is the general plan road. The realignment

[21:41] of Baker into nickels for its ultimate configuration as coordinated

[21:45] with the engineering department. The signalization of Baker and Nichols

[21:50] and the build - out appear street along the project

[21:52] frontage. These two renderings were shared, but ultimately I just

[21:59] want to acknowledge that we spent our great deal of

[22:01] time and effort working with staff to make sure that

[22:05] the architectural enhancements in the futures of the building are

[22:07] compatible with the surrounding area. Ensuring that the truck court

[22:11] and screening from the public right - of - way

[22:13] was addressed. And also that there's an abundance of landscaping

[22:16] and screening. I believe Nancy also mentioned this, but the

[22:24] project is in compliant with all sitting and design guidelines

[22:28] of the good neighbor policy. Um, well, the good neighbor

[22:32] policy doesn't apply to buildings under 250, 000 square feet.

[22:36] We did every attempt necessary to make sure that we

[22:38] could also ensure that that building was also designed to

[22:41] meet everything that we could. It's also in compliance with

[22:45] all the construction and operational measures of the Ganebra policy.

[22:51] In terms of economic benefits, about 350, 000 dollars is

[22:56] anticipated to go to the city's general fund annually. Job

[23:00] creation and labor income, both on a construction basis as

[23:03] well as an ongoing operational basis. One - time fees,

[23:11] so approximately 870, 000 dollars to the Lake Elsanor Unified

[23:14] School District 10. 5 million in terms of local and

[23:18] regional transportation and fire contributions, as well as 3. 9

[23:24] million to other agencies. Some of those agencies include the

[23:28] water district, um, MSHCP mitigation fees, and final engineering plan

[23:33] check fees at the applicant will pay toward to the

[23:35] city. Related to the development agreement. We spent a great

[23:42] deal of time with city managers'office, really working through this.

[23:46] And I think the major calling and requests from the

[23:48] city was we need money, and we need money sooner.

[23:50] And so that's how we've structured the development agreement. Um,

[23:54] certain milestones that I would say are a little bit

[23:58] abnormal for the types of projects that we work on

[24:00] to try and get fund sooner so that those funds

[24:02] can be put to work. Um, I think overall we

[24:05] acknowledge that this area needs improvements. These are regional issues.

[24:10] They need regional solutioning. We feel really good behind the

[24:13] contribution that we're making so that this money can be

[24:16] put to work and that there can be an improvement

[24:18] made out here. Community outreach, community outreach has been a

[24:24] big part of our initiative, um, we've really have tried

[24:27] and I've let all those efforts to be transparent and

[24:30] truthful, making sure that we, you know, understand what the

[24:33] community's concerns are, you know, revise our plans and do

[24:37] what we can to work with them. We've had four

[24:39] community outreach meetings, two in 2024 and two more recently

[24:43] in 2026. Um, and it's been a big part of,

[24:45] you know, what we've done and how we've showed up

[24:47] for the community. And then just lastly, in terms of

[24:52] timing, these things take time. So six and a half

[24:54] years to get where we're standing right now. If this

[24:58] project is approved, we would go into final engineering drawings.

[25:01] Followed by construction and opening year. So assuming no roadblocks

[25:06] in our way, um, the earliest that we would foresee

[25:09] this building being built, uh, or buildings being built would

[25:12] be Q1 of 2030. So we have some time ahead

[25:14] of us. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to address

[25:20] any questions you may have. One question. Of course. You

[25:29] mentioned the screening of the site from the nearby residential,

[25:34] both with walls and with landscaping and so forth. Could

[25:37] you remind us that there's a differential. Vertically between the

[25:43] nearest residents. And this property site? Could you mention that?

[25:48] Yeah. So, um, I would say that the nearest community

[25:52] that, um, is partially built would be the KB home

[25:56] development. It's about a fifth of a mile away. Um,

[25:59] there is an elevation grade, but there's also an L.

[26:02] So the elevation grade behind of where those residences are.

[26:06] But there's also an elevation grade difference on the project

[26:09] site from west to east. So, you know, those residences,

[26:13] and we've done visual simulations are included with our project

[26:16] documents, um, indicate the placement of the building, the ultimate

[26:20] grade. And, you know, that is the approximate location that

[26:24] I outlined. Which wouldn't be visible from those, from that

[26:30] community or any other community. To that matter. Right. Thank

[26:33] you. All right. Thank you very much. I was a

[26:38] great, um, presentation. Thank you. Well now. We'll open it

[26:46] up here for public, uh, just right now. So we'll

[26:49] receive comments from members of the public who wish to

[26:52] speak on this manner. We do have a packed house

[26:55] tonight. So, um, please keep in mind that each person

[26:58] may dress the planning commission for maximum of three minutes.

[27:01] Madam Secretary. I'm assuming we've received requests to speak tonight.

[27:06] Corre. Yes. We've received 14 requests to speak tonight. 14.

[27:10] The first will be Juan Cerrado.

[27:19] All right. If you could give us your name, um,

[27:23] where you live. So my name is throttle. You know,

[27:28] we cover a lot of this area, Riversed County. So

[27:31] this is where our members live here in this area.

[27:34] And you're with, if you could tell you no. Okay.

[27:36] Yeah. Like you're in a union. Uh, so good evening

[27:39] commissioners. My name is Juan Sorrow with the labor union

[27:42] of North America. Um, here tonight to speak and support

[27:46] of the Baker Street warehouse project. Uh, this is a

[27:49] significant investment in the city of Lake Elsinor. And I

[27:52] believe projects like this can bring real opportunities to the

[27:55] community. A project of this size means construction jobs for

[27:59] local workers, opportunities for apprentices. To get valuable experience and

[28:03] build a career. Uh, it also means, uh, the potential

[28:06] for long - term jobs once these buildings are up

[28:09] in opening. Um, I also think that it's important that,

[28:12] uh, Lake Illsonor continues to grow, uh, the people who

[28:16] live here have the opportunity to benefit from the growth.

[28:19] Uh, we want to see these projects built with a

[28:22] strong local workforce. And good paying jobs that help families

[28:26] support themselves and keep money right here in the community.

[28:29] I appreciate the commission taking the time to review this

[28:32] project for those reasons. I sprewfully ask that you support

[28:35] the Baker Street Warehouse budget. Thank you so much. Thank

[28:38] you, Juan. Thank you. Next. Speaker is polyterani.

[29:03] All right. We could get your name and where you

[29:04] live. Okay. My name is Polly and I live on

[29:09] Ash Street in Alper Hill Ranch. And good evening commissioners.

[29:15] Um, I'd like, I haven't done this in a long

[29:19] time. Seems like I have to because when I turn

[29:22] my back, then all this bullshit starts happening in our

[29:26] area. So anyhow, I'll be direct. Any zoning change connected

[29:30] to the Baker Street warehouse project is completely unacceptable. The

[29:34] project has already been built as of right under existing

[29:38] M1, M2, and OS zoning. The developers consultant told us

[29:43] city staff. Requested the zone changes to M2 heavy industrial.

[29:50] That was city staff that suggested that. None is required.

[29:55] So if a zoning change appears now, it's not planning.

[29:57] It's manufacturing a justification by city, staff after the fact.

[30:02] And that exposes a city to spot zoning claims and

[30:05] SQA violations because the EIR only analyzed impacts under curtains

[30:10] zoning. But it's really bad. It looks bad. That the

[30:15] city staff are the ones that said, Oh, to the

[30:18] developer, Dan and the guys. Change zoning to M2. We

[30:23] want it to be consistent. And they didn't take us

[30:25] into consideration. We are immune people. Let's be clear. Changing

[30:29] zones after approval breaks the city's own gurus. If violates

[30:34] the good neighbor policy, it contradicts the city's commitment to

[30:37] predictable land use planning and is directly harms, RMU neighborhoods

[30:43] that relied on longstanding zoning when they bought our homes.

[30:48] And any intensification, especially toward heavier industrial means, more trucks,

[30:54] more noise, more emissions, more height, and more impact. None

[30:57] of that was disclosed. None of that was analyzed. None

[31:00] of that. Is justified. And plus. The

[31:10] CUP. Probably said it wrong. Anyhow, it's 12, 000 or

[31:15] 1, 200 houses. And that's not going to happen. Um,

[31:21] poulte and syntax have built fewer houses. So we'll have

[31:25] to wait until Lansing company decides to build the apartment

[31:29] complexes. And who knows when that would be. That's when

[31:33] they'll have to pay to take care of the roads.

[31:36] And Sharon and I came here in two thumbs. And

[31:38] nine, I believe it was, or 10 telling you guys,

[31:41] please do not change the certificate of Apoc up. Occupancy.

[31:51] To 1200 because we'll never get the roads that we

[31:54] were promised. And that's, I can't believe the roads. Anyhow.

[32:05] There's zero legitimate planning basis for altering stable zoning for,

[32:11] okay, I'm going to just close this with one last

[32:14] six. Can I say it? You can finish. Okay. I

[32:18] haven't done this in years. Excuse me. My legs are

[32:23] shaking. I'm sorry. I'm having such a hard time. It's

[32:33] so bad. Can you. Help me. Jane? Oh, I got

[32:37] it. Here we go. Thank you. I will end by

[32:42] saying converting M1 to M2 at the Baker Street site

[32:46] is legally indefensible. Because it increases industrial intensity without general

[32:51] plan justifications triggering new SECOA obligations create spot zoning exposure

[32:57] violates reliance interest and contradicts the city's own compatibility process

[33:02] policies. The city must reject the proposed M1 to M2

[33:06] conversion to avoid significant legal and procedural risk. And the

[33:12] legal risk in this one, buddies. Thank you. Thank you,

[33:15] Polly. The next speaker is Sharon Galena.

[33:33] Good evening. Sharon Galena. Ash Street, Albert Hill Ranch. Is

[33:40] that a good enough? Yes. Okay. The M1 light manufacturing

[33:46] is over often nickels right now. Which I don't, I

[33:52] think that's good. Because light manufacturing has restrictions. Go to

[33:59] an M2 allows intensified use. Allows noise and truck traffic.

[34:07] I don't think Nichols can handle it. Right now, you

[34:10] get on nickels coming home off the freeway. It's backed

[34:14] up. All the way. How's the truck going to come

[34:20] down there? And who wants to hear trucks at night.

[34:24] None of us in Aberhil want to hear trucks at

[34:26] night. M2, you don't know what you're going to get.

[34:29] I hope we don't get boil heights over here. You

[34:33] don't know. You could give, oh, what is it? Oh,

[34:39] let's see. Better put my glasses on for this one.

[34:44] Um, hazmat material. You don't know what's coming. Because M2

[34:49] brings it all in. And people that bought houses, the

[34:56] brand new houses. They paid up to 800, 000 dollars.

[35:01] Who want an M2 behind them. Do you? You don't

[35:03] live there. We all live over there. They don't want

[35:07] to hear trucks at night. It was bad enough we

[35:10] had to hear the mining at night when we first

[35:12] moved in. So I guess that's it. That's it. I

[35:20] guess I'll be back. Thank you, Sharon. The next speaker

[35:28] is Karen Holder.

[35:39] I'm Karen Holder. I live on elderwood street in Alperhill

[35:42] Ranch. Anyway, I totally agree with my other two friends

[35:47] over here. Um, I am against changing it from M1

[35:51] to M2. I also, it was one of my first

[35:54] concerns is to have another oil heights. The traffic. You

[35:58] guys have not addressed the traffic. Um, that is one

[36:00] of the biggest components. The noise pollution. We already have

[36:04] air pollution. Um, from the freeways, the mines, the quarry

[36:09] over here. And now we're going to add more intense.

[36:13] And secondly, the noise. The noise, we have a quiet

[36:15] community. I listened to birds in the morning. I listened

[36:18] to birds at night. Um, I don't want to hear

[36:20] beep. Beep throughout the, throughout the evening. So anyway, I

[36:24] just want to put in. Please do not change the

[36:26] zoning. That is my biggest concern. And then to address

[36:32] the traffic. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. The next speaker

[36:41] is Linda Sloan.

[36:53] Hi, my name is Linda Slocum and I live on

[36:55] Alderwood place. Can you just step forward a little bit

[36:57] so we can hear you, let there. Okay. I'm sorry.

[36:59] Okay. My name is my name is Linda Slocum and

[37:02] I live on Alderwood plays. And when we originally bought

[37:05] here in 2012, we were made a lot of promises

[37:08] and none of them have come true. And now the

[37:11] plan that you guys, that's being proposed is to me

[37:14] absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. I do not want this zoning

[37:19] to change for one. This is supposed to be a

[37:22] residential community. So please, please do not approve this. And

[37:28] the traffic situation is horrible. And we were promised back

[37:31] in 12 that that was also going to be fixed

[37:34] at that nickels was supposed to be expanded. Lake was

[37:36] supposed to be expanded. And none of those plans have

[37:38] come through. So why would we expect anything different on

[37:41] this. Thank you. Thank you, Linda. The next speaker is

[37:51] Jennifer Douglas.

[38:03] My name's Jenifer Douglas. I live on Alderwood in Albert

[38:06] Hill community. Again, as the few people that have come

[38:10] before me, we were promised many different things when we

[38:14] bought the homes and even the new homeowners going in

[38:17] now had no idea that these warehouses were even going

[38:20] to be developed. So the fact that again, you guys

[38:23] are changing the zoning should not be happening. The traffic

[38:26] has yet to be addressed on both of them. We

[38:29] saw the traffic issues at the fullest extent when we

[38:32] had the poppy bloom. People couldn't get in and out

[38:34] of the city. We were actually not even able to

[38:36] alleave our homes during that time because you could not

[38:39] go down lake or nickels, which was our really the

[38:42] only entrances. So again, you need, please do not approve

[38:46] this. Thank you. Thank you, Jenipyr. The next speaker is

[38:54] Patricia Ponzo. Can you hear me? Yeah.

[39:05] My name is Patricia Ponzo. I live on ash in

[39:08] Alberhill Ranch. I'm here tonight because I'm concerned about the

[39:12] proposed make a warehouses on Nichols Road. And I'm asking

[39:16] you to please think about what this project will mean

[39:19] for the people who live here. Why? Because I live

[39:25] here. I drive Nichols Road. And if you've ever tried

[39:27] to get through Nichols around four o'clock in the afternoon,

[39:30] you know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't. You're

[39:34] the one that talked about our traffic. No, you don't

[39:37] have any idea what it's like. The traffic can already

[39:44] be backed up across the freeway and into the new

[39:47] neighborhood. And that's going in one direction. The other direction

[39:50] is backed up way past the electrical power there by

[39:54] Baker Street. In fact, I've learned to change the time.

[39:57] I leave my house just to avoid that. And remember

[40:01] that's just the traffic that we have now. Add on

[40:06] about 1, 900 additional vehicle trips every day. With all

[40:11] those trucks, it's going to be a mess. So I

[40:14] have a simple question. Where are the tricks going to

[40:17] go. And from what I understand, there's no plan to

[40:21] widen the road. Is that still true? You're not saying

[40:26] anything. To wind the road to accommodate all this additional

[40:30] traffic. So what are you going to do? What are

[40:33] you going to do about the congestion? What are you

[40:36] going to do about the diesel exhaust? What are you

[40:38] going to do about the noise. What are we going

[40:40] to do about the safety of the people that live

[40:43] in our neighborhoods. Because once these warehouses are built. We

[40:49] can't just unbuild them when we discovered that the traffic

[40:52] was unbearable. Finally. I want to remind you that we

[40:59] aren't just numbers on a traffic study. Where your residents.

[41:05] We live here. We're your neighbors. And yes, we're also

[41:09] your voters. So please don't just listen to our concerns,

[41:14] nod your heads and send us home. Please do something

[41:17] about it. Thank you. Thank you, Patricia. The next speaker

[41:25] is Orcadia Wilcox. Good afternoon. Orchidea Wilcox. I'm a local

[41:34] resident. Um, this seems to be like a contradiction of

[41:40] what the city of Lake Aussinor is supposed to be.

[41:43] It's supposed to be an extreme sports city, non -

[41:46] industrial city. So this is going to, again, the goals

[41:50] of the city. Like they were mentioning, you know, the

[41:54] pictures are very nice with three or four cars. I

[41:56] don't see all the tracks that are going to be

[41:57] coming and going. I don't see the pollution. That's going

[42:01] to be creating. I don't see all the noise that's

[42:04] going to be creating. That in a picture looks very

[42:07] pretty, but that's not a reality. Let's be clear. The

[42:10] grid. The water usage, the congestion on everything that is

[42:16] going to be happening is not showing on those pictures.

[42:19] The fire haser. You know, a big workhouse like that

[42:24] can catch on fire 300 feet from a neighborhood. That's

[42:28] not safe. Um, right now we don't know for sure

[42:32] what it's going to be there. And you cannot promise

[42:34] what is going to be there. It could be a

[42:36] data center pretty soon using all the water from lake

[42:39] else, you know. 9 million, the little bit of money

[42:44] that this project can bring. It would not pay for

[42:48] the usage of the water, the electricity, the air pollution,

[42:53] the noise pollution, the light pollution of the residence of

[42:56] lake calciner. We need to support the residents. You know,

[43:01] it's very nice for some people that live somewhere else.

[43:04] They want to have a job. But, you know, the

[43:07] people that count and the people that you represent are

[43:09] the people that live here. Not that people are coming

[43:11] to work. Um, I am against the change from M1

[43:19] to M2 because the expansion that you're going to create

[43:24] cannot be controlled after you do that. It will be

[43:28] irreversible. And the damage will be reversible. The little effort

[43:33] that they will put for a little bit of contribution

[43:36] for the ecosystem does not pay for all the acres

[43:39] that they're going to be creating against it. A little

[43:45] bit of money for the school. Please do not sell

[43:47] the city of Lake Helciner for just a little bit

[43:51] of change. This will bring 1900 new daily vehicle trips,

[43:59] 1500 to 1700 daily trips on the I - 15.

[44:02] And even though I don't live off nickel, I have

[44:04] to travel on the 15. I don't hear anything about

[44:07] enlarging. Uh, every day you have to pay coming from

[44:11] Riverside 14 dollars and you still for 15 miles you

[44:14] take an hour. Uh, there's no change for that. We

[44:18] live here, uh, we don't want to have all this

[44:21] congestion. It's not safe. It's not good. You cannot promise

[44:25] that this is going to be good for the city

[44:27] of Lake Kelsinger. Please protect the neighbors, protect the people

[44:32] that put you on your opposition. Thank you. The next

[44:39] speaker is Brianna Wilcox. Evening commission, my name is Brianna

[44:44] Wilcox. I'm a local resident. I'm also a proud union

[44:47] baby. I'm proud union member myself when I worked as

[44:50] a teacher. The thing is when you work as a

[44:52] teacher, you see how the living conditions of your students

[44:55] affects them. My kids are sick. Over a riverside because

[45:00] of all the warehouses that they've just been throwing in.

[45:03] My family's are sick. The congestion is unbelievable. They can't

[45:07] sleep because of the sound and smog and noise pollution,

[45:11] noxious chemicals. We're already getting chronic health conditions for kids

[45:15] who aren't even ten yet. Let alone the rest of

[45:18] their family. Like the people who live here. I don't

[45:23] know if you know what it feels like to be

[45:25] trapped in your neighborhood because of the freeway is clogged.

[45:28] When the wildfire coming. I don't know how close you

[45:31] live here. I'm sure that can be looked up, though.

[45:34] If you bring in what is already congested and what

[45:37] is already a safety hazard. You're just saying you want

[45:40] us to die in a fire. You're just saying you

[45:43] want, are you tell you to go up because water's

[45:46] being used? Electricity is being used. With rigorous safety standards,

[45:49] from so - called Edison, the same sulka, Aldison, that

[45:52] caused the eaten fire, right? And never got accountability for

[45:54] it. Those standards. That's what you're planning for this community.

[45:59] That's what you're planning for these families. They don't get

[46:01] to sleep. They don't get to breathe. They don't have

[46:04] a safe way out. For what. Some temporary construction jobs.

[46:09] And then terrible warehouse jobs. We don't even know who

[46:12] the buyer is for this warehouse. Who is it? Who

[46:15] is paying so much money that they want to profit

[46:17] off of this community. They're not telling us probably a

[46:21] good reason why. I was here for the city council

[46:24] meeting. Well, past series of city council meetings because we

[46:28] were trying to fight an AI data center that didn't

[46:30] say was a data center. It just wanted to be

[46:32] rezoned for industrial use. So who's buying here? Is it

[46:36] a data center? Is it Amazon. Is it the same

[46:39] warehouse conglomerates that force their workers to pee in a

[46:42] bottles because they don't want them to take 15 minute

[46:43] bathroom breaks. The ones that pay barely minimum wage. No

[46:49] vacation time. No real health care for when they get

[46:52] injured at way above industry standards and averages. You want

[46:57] to sell us out for crappy jobs that hurt us

[47:00] for air that poisons us. You want to ruin these

[47:01] families'lives. I appreciate this has been many years in the

[47:05] making. But then I wonder, why has this been so

[47:07] many years in the making without our input. We are

[47:11] the ones who are going to bear the true cost

[47:12] of this. And I'm wondering, why would city stuff wish

[47:15] this through open you to litigation. Trying to justify things

[47:19] after the fact? Where's that money going? Because we're not

[47:22] seeing it. A couple of acres for conservation is not

[47:25] going to mitigate every risk that this represents. And I'm

[47:32] sorry that I'm upset. But it's because I care. I

[47:36] don't want any more kids sick. I don't want any

[47:38] families trapped in a wildfire. You live here, you belong

[47:42] here too. Please vote like it. Thank you.

[47:52] The next speaker is Andrew Molina.

[48:05] The next speaker after Andrew Molina will be.

[48:21] You guys hear me? Alright, good evening everybody. My name

[48:24] is Andrew Melling and I'm a representative with the Western

[48:27] States Regional Council of Carpenters here in Riverside County, representing

[48:30] over 6, 100 members, countywide. And several of them live

[48:35] in and around this area. We're here to speak in

[48:39] favor of the project, not only because of the job

[48:41] opportunities it's going to bring, but also because the developer

[48:44] has committed to using responsible local contractors that will pay

[48:48] an area standard wage, a livable wage, and higher apprentices

[48:52] from a state accredited apprenticeship program. Thank you. All right,

[48:57] thank you Andrew. The next speaker is Louis Briges.

[49:07] The next speaker is Saugaytan. The next speaker is Ruth

[49:17] Bryson.

[49:28] Good evening. My name is Ruth Brissonden from Stand Up

[49:33] for Mother Earth. I also live in Tumisco Valley just

[49:36] up the road from this proposed project. As I'm sure

[49:41] you're aware, this project cite is home to several populations

[49:44] of the rare and endangered San Diego Ambrosia, which will

[49:49] be negatively impacted by this project. In 2002, San Diego

[49:55] Ambrosia was listed as an endangered species under the U.

[49:58] S. Endangered Species Act. In 2010, the U. S. Fish

[50:03] and Wildlife Service at a critical habitat for the San

[50:06] Diego Ambrosia to the listing. This designation of critical habitat

[50:11] created subunit 1B consisting of about 70 acres in the

[50:15] area around Nichols Road where this project has located. The

[50:20] designation of critical habitat stated that this subunit is essential

[50:24] to the conservation and genetic diversity of this species. San

[50:30] Diego and Brosia is found only in a few places

[50:33] in the world. It's found in limited numbers only here

[50:36] in Riverside County, San Diego County and Baja, California. The

[50:40] parcel upon which the proposed project sits contains at least

[50:44] eight different populations of this endangered plant. All of which

[50:50] are slated to be removed and then transplanted in the

[50:53] conserved area. The area is already under conservation. So how

[50:59] is this new mitigation? Anyway, none of the endangered ambrosia

[51:04] at this site will remain in its natural location. All

[51:08] will be dug up and all will be removed. Hopefully

[51:11] some will still survive. The FEIR seems to twist the

[51:16] language at the MSHCP to justify their removal of all

[51:20] of the ambrosia under rationale that since 90 percent of

[51:24] the population cannot be avoided, then none should be avoided.

[51:28] Does that make sense to you. At least some of

[51:31] the ambrosia should remain in situ to maximize the chances

[51:36] of its survival. Translocation should complement, not replace full protection

[51:43] measures for the ambrosia. It's possible that a downscaled project,

[51:49] such as that proposed under alternative number three, the reduced

[51:52] project alternative described in the draft EIR could avoid at

[51:58] least some of the ambrosia. Some would be avoided, some

[52:01] would be translocated, offering the best chance for survival for

[52:05] this rare and dangered native plant. This would also satisfy

[52:11] the primary project objectives due to the similarity in the

[52:16] development type design use and location. I urge you to

[52:23] either reject this project in whole or adopt alternative three

[52:29] instead of the project as proposed. Thank you. Thank you.

[52:32] Red. The next speaker is Ace Vallejos.

[52:47] Good evening. I'm Ashed Vallejo, and I wanted to go

[52:50] ahead and speak in opposition to what is currently planned.

[52:54] M1. M2 is okay. I don't think any of us

[52:57] are against any development in the area. I think, also

[53:01] if you take a look at the RMU zoning, all

[53:04] that zoning allows jobs. Those jobs are very well paying

[53:08] jobs. I know people that work in those light manufacturing

[53:10] in our area and they make a substantial salary. So

[53:14] I don't see where that's an issue. Uh, getting out

[53:18] on Nichols Road. And over the Lake Street or over

[53:22] to the Nicholson ramp. It's terrible. There's just no, it

[53:26] just doesn't even make any sense. In fact, cloud chair

[53:30] and RCTC have no plans right now to do anything

[53:33] with that on - ramp or widening or anything like

[53:36] that. I believe they're working on central now. And there's

[53:39] no scope or work being moved forward on nickels. Nichols

[53:44] eventually, I understand El Toro will come in and merge

[53:48] in with the rest of it there. So that's a

[53:51] long ways off before that ever gets done. The bottom

[53:54] line is as compatible development. Something that's compatible with the

[53:58] houses compatible with the neighborhood. And I think that that

[54:01] would be light manufacturing would be fine. It'd be nice

[54:04] to have a hospital. It'll be nice to have a

[54:07] life city college or something like that. But what you're

[54:10] proposing now is incompatible. It doesn't make any sense. Thank

[54:13] you. Thank you Ace. The next speaker is Michael Moran.

[54:26] I'm fairly new to the area. I'm one of the

[54:28] people that moved in recently that had no idea about

[54:30] the warehouses, you know, real estate agents. They don't tell

[54:33] you those things. So anyway, the reason I came up

[54:38] is I had a question. You had a slide of

[54:41] slide up there about transportation. You go to slide during

[54:44] your presentation about transportation. Could you answer? I had a

[54:48] question about that.

[55:01] So this makes your project look really good. And if

[55:03] I wanted to make my project look good, I'd do

[55:05] a slide just like that. I'm going to have to

[55:11] sit down. Um, yeah, this is a great slide. If

[55:17] I wanted to make my project look good, I do

[55:19] one just like this. My question, I couldn't read the

[55:22] axes. So what's the baseline? I see that that increase

[55:26] is very light. But what is baseline and in a

[55:32] percentage basis? How much does that increase the percentage of

[55:36] traffic? Do we have an idea about that. I can't

[55:39] answer. That. Anybody. And whatever that percentage increase is have

[55:49] plans been made, as many people have brought up, to

[55:53] address the logistics around the area in order to make.

[55:58] The traffic be reasonable. And I didn't hear anything in

[56:03] the presentation along those lines in terms of anything that

[56:06] was going to be done to address that. Um, I

[56:09] do think, I'm all for more jobs. I think the

[56:13] jobs are great. Um, but the good jobs are temporary.

[56:17] This is a warehouse. And those warehouse jobs I know

[56:20] from experience, um, are not the greatest jobs. And the

[56:26] safety issues that have been brought up are very real.

[56:29] Um, so I just wanted to make those points. Um,

[56:32] and, uh, I'm in agreement with the project not going

[56:37] forward as it is until some of these issues are

[56:39] addressed. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Andre

[56:48] Masuzov. Hi everyone. Oh, that's nice. Um, so

[56:59] I stand against the licensing change from M1 and M2.

[57:04] To M2. And also I wanted to speak as a

[57:06] person who lives in the new KB home community that

[57:10] was recently built and still in the process of building.

[57:14] Our home, myself and my families and also a home

[57:17] of my neighbors who also have families and the young

[57:20] children will directly oversee the proposed construction proposed baker street

[57:27] project. I think it's going to one negatively impact the

[57:31] air quality, the water quality, the overall look of the

[57:34] area. There is a, I would say big outbreak hill

[57:39] range community and also including this AB home project or

[57:43] large community that has kids. A lot of children actually.

[57:49] It has a school up the hill that will also.

[57:54] Certain issues in terms of air quality that this project

[57:56] will bring. Um, this is a nice presentation, but I

[58:01] do think that for debt area specifically, there are many

[58:04] things that can be done from the city side that

[58:07] can actually improve people's lives there. And instead of building

[58:11] this project, um, I stand not only against the license

[58:14] change, but also against the project in general. I think

[58:17] again, there is much better use of that length in

[58:20] that area. Um, yeah, that's all. Thank you very much.

[58:31] Next speaker is Cassandra Madison.

[58:46] Good evening, commissioners. My name is Cassandra Madison. And I

[58:49] am here to Lake Elsinor resident. Concerned about the Baker

[58:53] Street warehouse project. I am not opposed to economic development.

[59:00] But development of this size must provide benefits that are

[59:03] clear, measurable and enforceable. We renaced to approve more than

[59:08] one million square feet of industrial development potentially operating 24

[59:13] hours a day, seven days a week with substantial daily

[59:17] truck traffic. At the same time, the environmental review acknowledges

[59:23] significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. So

[59:28] my first question is simple. What guaranteed benefit to the

[59:32] people of Lake Elsinor is substantially enough to justify accepting

[59:36] environmental impacts that cannot fully be mitigated. I also want

[59:41] clarity on the economic benefit. How many permanent jobs will

[59:45] actually be created at this facility? How many are expected

[59:49] to go to Lake Elsinor residents? What wages are anticipated?

[59:54] And most importantly, what direct tax revenue will this project

[59:57] generate for our city. Regional economic projects are not the

[1:00:01] same has guaranteed local benefits. I also want to know

[1:00:04] who pays for the infrastructure this project requires. Road improvements

[1:00:09] sewer facilities, utilities, traffic, mitigation and other infrastructure connected to

[1:00:15] this development should be paid for by the developer. Lake

[1:00:19] Elsinor taxpayers and rapes should not be asked to subsidize

[1:00:23] the long - term costs of private development. And finally,

[1:00:28] we do not yet know who the tenant will be.

[1:00:31] If this project can operate 24 hours a day and

[1:00:33] accommodate a range of industrial uses, then the strongest protections

[1:00:37] need to be established now before approval, not negotiated later

[1:00:42] after a tenant arise. That includes enforceable truck routes, idling

[1:00:48] restrictions, nor is protections, environmental monitoring, infrastructure responsibilities, and consequences

[1:00:54] for noncompliance. I ask you to evaluate this project not

[1:00:58] only on what is being promised tonight, but on what

[1:01:00] the city will actually be able to enforce 5, 10

[1:01:03] or 20 years from now. Responsible development should pay its

[1:01:07] own way, protecting the surrounding community and provide benefit, proportionate

[1:01:13] to the burden it creates. Please make sure these commitments

[1:01:16] are enforceable and not simply projected. Thank you. Thank you,

[1:01:21] Cassandra. Next speaker is Elliot Ruland.

[1:01:38] Hi everyone, my name's Elliot. I'm a new resident here.

[1:01:41] I live in the KB community. Um, like the gentleman

[1:01:45] that was up here for moments ago. Uh, I moved

[1:01:48] in last year and had no idea that we'd be

[1:01:50] getting a warehouse built right next to us. Um, you

[1:01:54] know, one of the things that I really liked about

[1:01:56] Lake Elsinor is it's a beautiful area. I can walk

[1:02:00] outside my front door and see the mountains and the

[1:02:02] greenery. And it's really beautiful. I see it as a

[1:02:04] place that can grow and develop to a place where

[1:02:07] people want to come and live here and to come

[1:02:08] visit. Um, I don't think warehouse, uh, makes it look

[1:02:12] any more beautiful. Um, I think it makes it look

[1:02:15] quite bad actually. Right. Um, climate is important to me

[1:02:19] as well. And when we are going to be inviting,

[1:02:22] um, you know, semi trucks to be driving on our

[1:02:25] already two small streets, right? Polluting the air. There's kids

[1:02:29] in my neighborhood. There's a, I think an elementary school

[1:02:32] pretty nearby as well. Um, I just don't think that

[1:02:35] that's the right choice. We can, we can develop the

[1:02:37] land and bring things in that will be beneficial for

[1:02:39] the community. Uh, I don't think this is broadly beneficial

[1:02:42] for the community. Um, and then as far as the

[1:02:45] roads, I was commuting up the 15 for quite a

[1:02:49] while. Um, after I moved here. And sometimes just to

[1:02:53] get on the freeway at Lake Street would take me

[1:02:55] like 25 minutes coming from, uh, that KB community nickel

[1:02:59] streets is a disaster. It doesn't even have street lights.

[1:03:02] It curves. You can't even, you can barely see it

[1:03:04] night. You know, I'd like to see, um, our tax

[1:03:07] dollars going towards improving the city for the residents that

[1:03:10] are here. Um, not to, uh, you know, help out

[1:03:14] a big business or a corporation come in and take

[1:03:16] our land and put something there that no one really

[1:03:19] wants. So I hope that you, um, you listened to

[1:03:22] everyone and make a choice that benefits the community and

[1:03:25] not, uh, whatever company happens to come in. Who knows.

[1:03:29] Maybe we'll find out. Uh, when it actually opens. Thank

[1:03:31] you. Thank you, Aliyek. The next speaker is Harley Quinn

[1:03:37] Flint. Hello.

[1:03:48] Everyone. My name is Harley and I'm a resident of

[1:03:52] Lake Elsinor as well as a small business owner here.

[1:03:55] This is my first time speaking publicly. So please bear

[1:03:59] with me. I also did not necessarily plan to speak

[1:04:04] tonight. I just got off of a very long day

[1:04:06] of work. So, um. Please enjoy my bullet points. Um,

[1:04:11] so I am, again, I'm here today as a resident

[1:04:14] and a small business owner. I run a mobile service

[1:04:17] operating from Temecula through Corona, but most of my clients

[1:04:21] are right here in Lake Alsinore. I drive through Lake

[1:04:24] Street in Nickel Street almost on a daily basis. As

[1:04:27] a mobile dog groomer, I aim to provide services of

[1:04:29] care to my community. And I'm working every day to

[1:04:32] find more ways I can be involved and act to

[1:04:34] improve my city. That being said, I speak with my

[1:04:40] clients about their thoughts on the city and their needs.

[1:04:43] Many of them has expressed opinions over the years of

[1:04:46] the condition of, um, one, the traffic. But also generally

[1:04:52] how they've been made promises as they were moving in

[1:04:55] to have a beautiful city, some of the most gorgeous

[1:05:00] scenery going through Lake Street, for example. And, um, they

[1:05:04] feel like that's not being met. Um, and having a

[1:05:10] zone change from an M1 warehouse to an M2 would

[1:05:14] be even worse of a change. Also, as a resident,

[1:05:23] I was here for the Macy fire. My mom has

[1:05:27] a very severe breathing condition. And as an animal lover,

[1:05:32] I also have 10 pets. Definitely not all furry. You

[1:05:35] know, we've got some toads in there. But, um, it

[1:05:39] took us 10 hours to evacuate our animals. And that's

[1:05:43] not including the traffic. That's not, um, that's not even

[1:05:48] including the trips back and forth from different boarding facilities,

[1:05:52] finding a place for us to stay while the air

[1:05:57] quality was so horrible. Now I am fearful of the

[1:06:02] next time that we have to evacuate. Because while we've

[1:06:05] made plans just in case, I want to make sure

[1:06:09] that my family can get out safely. And there's only

[1:06:14] so many people and animals you can fit into one

[1:06:18] or two small vehicles. Um, and so having to take

[1:06:22] multiple trips, knowing how atrocious the traffic already is. Again,

[1:06:27] as a mobile business, I have to sit through it

[1:06:30] every day. Um, I am deeply, deeply concerned. Uh, so

[1:06:36] please don't change the zoning. Thank you. Thank you, Harley.

[1:06:44] The next speaker is David Noblet. Good evening, commissioners and

[1:06:51] city staff. Thank you for this venue to point out

[1:06:54] and make comments to, uh, to this project. So a

[1:06:57] few, first of all, I do live in South Corona,

[1:07:00] so I don't live in the city, but I do

[1:07:01] have a lot of the same. Traffic challenges that, you

[1:07:05] know, residents in the city like elsewhere do. So we're

[1:07:07] not toned up to that. So a few things to

[1:07:10] point out. The site already does have M1 and M

[1:07:13] zone. M2 zoning on the site. And so that's existing

[1:07:19] already there. It is just to create a consistency of

[1:07:22] zoning. Um, and what that does is it allows for

[1:07:26] an M2 zoning. It allows a more larger breath of

[1:07:30] users that have manufacturing uses higher paying jobs. Tech industry

[1:07:34] jobs to come in and actually operate and facilitate those

[1:07:37] buildings. Um, couple things also. Projects like this. Are the

[1:07:43] backbone of infrastructure for cities in the inland empire. They

[1:07:46] pay for the fire department such as this project is

[1:07:50] road streets bridges cities general fund. And so when you

[1:07:53] have a city, you know, that has a lot of

[1:07:55] residents and commercial, but not a lot of industrial. It's

[1:07:59] hard to get, you know, to offset those costs. Um,

[1:08:01] this project is really showing one of the very, very

[1:08:06] few industrial zone areas inside the city of Lake Elsinor.

[1:08:10] Um, and so, you know, the city or Temescal canyon,

[1:08:13] county land has industrial projects that they're going to benefit

[1:08:16] from those dollars. But inside the city of Lake Elsednor,

[1:08:19] the handful of projects that actually can, you know, reap

[1:08:22] the benefit of that. And so, you know, one of

[1:08:24] the gentlemen had mentioned that he was driving to Riverside

[1:08:27] up north to the 15, um, every day for work.

[1:08:31] Well, the idea is when you have it a warehouse,

[1:08:33] when you have a manufacturing facility in your own city,

[1:08:37] there's presence that will no longer have to commute up

[1:08:40] the freeway or down the freeway. Temecula, I grew up

[1:08:43] in specula. Temacula, Lake Elsinor, Minifee, that whole canyon, everybody

[1:08:48] drives out. And so, you know, you either drive to

[1:08:51] San Diego, Orange County, Riverside County, or Los Angeles County.

[1:08:55] With projects now in the inland empire, um, as a

[1:08:58] whole, and good skilled labor jobs, um, medium labor and,

[1:09:02] you know, high intensity labor jobs. We are now bringing

[1:09:05] our residents back home more time with their families, less

[1:09:08] time on the roads. So thank you for your time.

[1:09:10] Appreciate it. Thank you very much. The next speaker is

[1:09:15] David O'Malley. Good evening.

[1:09:25] Hopefully I can bring a positive end tonight's presentation. I

[1:09:29] have kind of a weird hobby or liking. I am

[1:09:33] very interested in land planning. And I really like to

[1:09:36] see projects like this one tonight in front of you

[1:09:38] that are well planned and are designed for a site

[1:09:42] and situation. I've looked at the exhibits. I've looked at,

[1:09:45] I've spoken to the applicant. And this is one of

[1:09:47] a kind. Um, it isn't going up the five freeway

[1:09:50] in grapevine and seeing a big box with a sign

[1:09:52] on it. Very sensitive, well - negotiated. You hear the

[1:09:57] word impact. There's a lot of good impact that this

[1:10:01] property brings. This application brings. It's a great investment. Um,

[1:10:05] I thought I heard nine million dollars with a roadway

[1:10:07] improvements. That's well done. School fees for an industrial site.

[1:10:13] Well done. Conservation mitigation and banking. Well done. I don't

[1:10:17] think I've ever heard that before in all my years

[1:10:20] in this business where a industrial design and application actually

[1:10:26] is sensitive toward the environment. So, um, impact can be

[1:10:31] good. And I think impacts will be very good on

[1:10:34] this particular application and a great addition to your city.

[1:10:37] Thank you. Thank you very much. We did have one

[1:10:42] last speaker request come in. It is Brianna Sora.

[1:10:54] Hi. Everyone. You can pull it down so we can

[1:10:57] hear you a little bit. Thank you. Um, hi everyone.

[1:11:00] My name is Brianna Sarah. I'm here to oppose the

[1:11:03] Baker Street Mega Warehouse. Actually a, I've been living here

[1:11:06] my whole life. I grew up in Lakeyesnor. I moved

[1:11:09] to Orange County. I went to undergrad over there. I

[1:11:13] went to grad school and I recently came back and

[1:11:15] I purchased a home in the terracena community. And I

[1:11:19] love Lake Elsinor. I never thought I would say that.

[1:11:24] Growing up, I remember always wanting to leave just because

[1:11:28] I felt like we were such a small town, but

[1:11:30] coming back in saying how big and how much it

[1:11:33] has expanded and the growth, I wanted to move back

[1:11:36] and just stay here. So when I learned about the

[1:11:41] mega Baker Street Make a Warehouse, I was pretty upset

[1:11:44] just because I felt like we can't be just wasn't

[1:11:48] transparent. I also remember coming to the planning commission meetings.

[1:11:53] And I just felt like there was also a lack

[1:11:54] of transparency there as well. I also feel like the

[1:11:57] city council hasn't really represented us as residents. Um, and

[1:12:01] I feel like we're just being sold to the mega

[1:12:05] companies and to kind of address someone else's comment about

[1:12:09] how these make a warehouses are going to create jobs.

[1:12:14] A lot of people who have, for example, for me,

[1:12:17] this will not be a good job for me. This

[1:12:18] is not sustainable. I cannot live on this type of

[1:12:22] outwardly wage job. And I also don't want my health

[1:12:26] impact to be impacted while it's a concern for if

[1:12:29] I ever want to have children. If they're going to

[1:12:31] have any health issues just due to the proximity of

[1:12:33] the mega warehouse. So I want to concern by the

[1:12:36] fire hazards. Um, like I said, I, my family husband

[1:12:40] here for a very long time. And I have seen

[1:12:42] those wild fires and they're very, very scary. And the

[1:12:46] traffic is already so terrible on the Nichols road. And

[1:12:50] if it's not going to be widened, that's a very

[1:12:51] concerning because there's a lot of residents that not just

[1:12:55] live in the Albrecht, but they also live, um, Mac

[1:13:00] Baker area. We also have the residents that label on

[1:13:03] the other side of the lake. Those are a lot

[1:13:05] of residents. And I feel like you guys need to

[1:13:08] address our concerns first prior. To moving forward with this

[1:13:14] project. Because right now I feel like this is not

[1:13:18] acceptable and it's not really compatible with the surrounding area.

[1:13:22] Thank you. Thank you. Could includes the speakers for tonight.

[1:13:31] Sorry. Was that concludes the speakers for chat? Yes. I

[1:13:34] know we have the pleasure of having, um, a representative

[1:13:37] of traffic with us tonight. I don't know if you're

[1:13:39] prepared or interested in addressing any of the items of

[1:13:43] concerns of the community.

[1:13:57] All right. Sorry for John's spot there. Oh, no worries.

[1:14:01] Uh, yeah, good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Happy to be

[1:14:05] here with you tonight. Um, so obviously I'm Paul. I'm

[1:14:09] the senior engineer here with the city of Lake Elsinor.

[1:14:12] So obviously we recognize the congestion down the nickels road

[1:14:17] area. And so there is an overall city plan to

[1:14:21] help out with the congestion in the area. Um, baker

[1:14:24] is one piece of that. So bakers are obviously going

[1:14:27] to install the intersection improvements at nickelsroad and baker. And

[1:14:31] then they're going to do the realignment as Dane was

[1:14:33] discussing earlier. And then they also, um, that includes a

[1:14:37] signal. And they'll also be building out peer street. So

[1:14:40] that'll provide a nice connection for the community over there

[1:14:42] as well, uh, to have a quicker route to the

[1:14:45] interchange. On top of that, they're obviously contributing the 9

[1:14:49] million dollars. Sorry, let me fix this. On top of

[1:14:53] that, they're contributing 9 million dollars. So that really provides

[1:14:55] the city with flexibility, um, to construct additional improvements in

[1:15:00] the area. Uh, as we see, you know, congestion, uh,

[1:15:06] as we see it develop. On top of that, you

[1:15:08] may remember, call your retail shops. They actually got conditioned

[1:15:12] to construct the signal at Collier Avenue at Nichols Road.

[1:15:16] So that is in final design right now. And that

[1:15:19] will be constructed. Within the next, you know, year or

[1:15:22] so here. And addition to that, we are working with

[1:15:26] a master developer of the Albert Hill Ranch area. And

[1:15:29] so, um, he has a lot of projects down the

[1:15:32] pipeline in this area. Right now they're actually progressing. The

[1:15:35] conceptual design of changing nickel's road to a foreign lane

[1:15:39] road. So that is in the works as well. Um,

[1:15:43] and on top of that, the city has the nickel's

[1:15:46] bridge and interchange project that's currently going through the environmental

[1:15:49] document. So there's a lot of things playing on in

[1:15:54] the background aside from just what you see in the

[1:15:56] conditions here. So I think that that will really help.

[1:15:59] But obviously, you know, improvements take time. And so a

[1:16:03] lot of these do have some environmental components such as

[1:16:06] the interchange. So. In my mind, that's the big picture

[1:16:10] of how everything will develop here over time. Thank you

[1:16:16] very much. All right. Um, do any commissioners have questions

[1:16:22] for staff or wish to make any comments. To be.

[1:16:30] Able to lane. Girls. Now we're talking. Five years. 10

[1:16:33] years. 30. So realistically, it's all tied to, if there

[1:16:41] is any environmental, um, if there's none, it could be

[1:16:46] three years, like anticipated window when that could come in.

[1:16:50] So right. Now. KD home.

[1:17:02] Madam chair, I think the way this is supposed to

[1:17:05] work. Is that we have a public comment substitute, but

[1:17:08] we usually don't engage in a debate in this way.

[1:17:10] So if anyone would want to talk to our traffic

[1:17:14] engineer afterwards, it certainly would be available to do that.

[1:17:17] All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions. Of staff. No.

[1:17:27] Um, I would like to say that, um, I want

[1:17:30] to acknowledge, um, everybody for coming out and addressing your

[1:17:33] concerns, um, your support for the project. It's good for

[1:17:38] us to hear from the community. Um, I understand why

[1:17:41] project of this size, um, particularly one involving warehouse operations

[1:17:46] and traffic generates concerns within the community. Our responsibility here

[1:17:52] is a planning commission is to evaluate the project based

[1:17:55] on the city's general plan, the municipal code, environmental review.

[1:18:01] Project design and the conditions that we have the authority

[1:18:06] to impose, which there are several conditions in their conditions

[1:18:09] of approval for this project. So. Um, you know, I

[1:18:14] want to say we hear you, but that's what our

[1:18:18] role is here as the planning commission. So if we

[1:18:20] don't have any other, uh, commissioner's comments, uh, declare, sorry,

[1:18:29] first of all, I appreciate the passion that was brought

[1:18:31] out here tonight. This is part of what I love

[1:18:32] about the lake housenor community. And there was a lot

[1:18:35] of great points that were made all well taken and

[1:18:40] noted, um. A couple of the comments were, well, you

[1:18:45] need to address our concerns. Um, I'm not going to

[1:18:49] sit here and address them point by point. But I

[1:18:51] can say that I've been to, uh, the community outreach

[1:18:56] that the developer has put on multiple times, not to

[1:18:59] hear the same boring presentation, but to talk to the

[1:19:03] community members who did come to the outreach. And so

[1:19:06] I know the passion in this room right now. And

[1:19:09] a lot of voices, but there's this discussion has been

[1:19:12] going on for a while. And there are a lot

[1:19:14] of other voices who have opinions as well. Um, that

[1:19:17] being said, you know, some of the concerns that I

[1:19:19] heard we didn't know that, uh, it was industrial. But

[1:19:24] it's, it's been industrial. Um, and in fact, part of

[1:19:28] it is already M2. I'm personally in favor of larger

[1:19:34] industrial buildings as opposed to smaller. You have the ability

[1:19:38] to have more structured and strategic. You're going to have

[1:19:42] those trucks if it's industrial. And we have a bigger

[1:19:45] warehouse. You have one user who they don't want to

[1:19:47] sit with the cars either. They're going to be more

[1:19:50] strategic on how they're scheduling their routes and how they're,

[1:19:55] um, how they're making their ways in and out. Um,

[1:19:58] and lastly, one of the speakers said that, uh, they

[1:20:01] were proud to call, you know, this home Lake Elsinor

[1:20:04] and they didn't think they were ever going to say

[1:20:05] that. And they talked about the beauty and the expansion

[1:20:07] that has gone on in the city. And this, this

[1:20:10] is part of that. And unfortunately the roads don't get

[1:20:15] bigger. The roads don't get bigger on their own. They

[1:20:18] get bigger out of necessity. And things like our city

[1:20:23] staff did an incredible job negotiating nine million dollars. To

[1:20:28] go towards doing this stuff that we want. So all,

[1:20:31] all the concerns that I've heard are valid. And they've

[1:20:38] been. Comple. They've been, um, addressing those concerns. Yeah. I

[1:20:46] mean, that you would act like. 9 million dollars in

[1:20:47] a lot of money. So. I wouldn't say. Good job.

[1:20:55] I'd say unitable. Job. Are. Somebody who's not a place.

[1:21:01] I'm sorry, but the time for public comments is closed.

[1:21:04] You were all given an opportunity to speak. I'm sorry.

[1:21:08] I got. Your meeting in your room. I'm sorry.

[1:21:18] Yeah. All right.

[1:21:40] We keep moving forward. So. Were you doing? Yes. No.

[1:21:47] Thank you. All right. Public here. I'm going to declare

[1:21:50] the public hearing closed. The time is now 720. Uh,

[1:21:55] may I have a motion. All right. We have a

[1:22:05] motion for approval. Vice chair dvor. Any second.

[1:22:17] By Commissioner Gray. So we'll move to vote. Is it.

[1:22:26] Posting. Oh, I. Can't see.

[1:22:43] The motion passes unanimously. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Congratulations

[1:22:52] to Byrne African. Do we have staff comments tonight. No

[1:22:56] comments tonight. City Attorney comments. No comments, manager. Any other

[1:23:01] commissioner comments. Thank you for staff for all the information

[1:23:07] you guys provided. It was great. Thank you. Yeah, it

[1:23:10] was a great comprehensive report and package. So yeah, thank

[1:23:13] you to staff for all of your work and to

[1:23:16] the applicant for all of their outreach for this. All

[1:23:19] right. Uh, the Lake Elsanor planning commission will join at

[1:23:22] 721 to the next regular meeting on Tuesday, September 15th.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript