Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Recording in progress.

All right. Recording's going. So it is 5.30, and I'm going to call the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, May 22, 2026 to order. Could you please do the roll call, Recording Secretary? Want to do the pledge?

Chair, I think we are waiting on one more commissioner. Oh, sorry. So just one moment, and we'll just...

Okay. Okay.

Okay, I'll go ahead and conduct roll call. Commissioner Pearson. Yes. Commissioner Mansfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Grossman.

Yes.

Commissioner Dela Cusack. Commissioner Dela Cusack is absent this evening. Commissioner Batia.

Present.

Vice Chair Lin. Vice Chair Lin is absent as well. Chair Stark.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Now if I could ask for everyone that can to please rise, and Commissioner Pearson will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay, begin after me.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God.

At this time, I'd like to move up the wireless hearing after public comments so the representatives of that item can leave without hearing the rest of the discussion. Do I have any other objections from my fellow commissioners? Okay, nice, why don't we do that. So then we'll open up the public comments for non-agendized items. The public can speak on any item that's not listed on tonight's agenda. Taya, do we have any public comments or non-agendized items?

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. Chair, there are no public comments on non-agendized items.

All right, thank you. Director Frady, do you have any introductions?

No introductions tonight, Chair.

How about staff reports?

No staff reports.

Would any of my fellow commissioners have any announcements or reports they would like to make? No? How about any additions or deletions?

None tonight.

Okay. So then we'll move up item five, the conditional use permit. So I'll open the public hearing for that. Director Frady, could you please introduce the item?

Thank you, Chair. The item before you is conditional use permit for a new Class 6 wireless communication facility, a utility tower mount at 15815.5 Jeffrey Road in Planning Area 12, Oak Creek. Presenting tonight is Senior Planner Brett Cannon, joined by Principal Planner Chris Chung.

Thank you, director. Good evening, Chairman Stark and members of the Planning Commission. Tonight, staff will be presenting a request by the applicant, T-Mobile, for a conditional use permit to install a Class 6 wireless facility on an existing Southern California Edison utility tower. So the project site is located within the SCE transmission corridor in Planning Area 12, Oak Creek, on the south side of Jeffrey Road that you can see there. The general plan and zoning designation are recreation. And as you can see, the immediate area is within the farmland of the SCE corridor. Can you feedback? Is it good? Okay, sorry, and you can see Irvine Valley College would be to the right, and residential would be on the opposite side of Jeffrey Road there that you can see. There is an existing wireless facility and CMU equipment enclosure already on site, which could be there just to the right on the slide next to the stars where the existing enclosure is. So T-Mobile proposes to install an antenna array on the existing SCE tower. The associated equipment would be housed in the existing enclosure there, seen on the elevation. The array will be comprised of nine panel antennas, and it'll be mounted at 75 feet above ground level. The equipment in the enclosure will include accessory cabinets and a battery backup system. By utilizing the site, the existing infrastructure associated with the previous array, there'll be a minimal visual impact because there will be no new ground disturbance because no new enclosure will be required to be constructed. So a couple of the next slides will be photo simulation views. So this one looks kind of northeast across the SCE corridor. If you're familiar with the area, this would kind of be like standing in the Monsero parking lot, kind of looking back towards Irvine Center Drive. And as discussed on the previous slide, you can see here the existing array is actually going to be removed. and the applicant has confirmed that those existing array and the ground equipment within the existing enclosure will be disposed of to industry best practices and recycled where they can be. And the second view here is, again, if you're familiar with the area, this would be Irvine Valley College, kind of the north-ish parking lot, like if you're standing kind of near the Performing Arts Center. And again, you can see the existing and proposed, they're going to be removing the array, and then the new one will be on the same tower. So there was additional sites that are required to be evaluated by the applicant and confirmed by staff. The proposed location is the least impactful option that we've reviewed that would meet the Cary's objective for coverage. The adjacent SCE towers were considered feasible. However, those did not have the existing facilities such as the ground equipment enclosure and or an SCE active license. So again, and then this one was also furthest away from residential. Irvine Valley College rooftop was examined, didn't have sufficient height. And then, again, the project would be able to repurpose the utility structure which made the site the most feasible. So environmentally, this project will be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 for existing facilities. As commissioners are aware, with all wireless facilities, we actually have two public notices. There's one that's called a Hello Neighbor, and that's more of a convenience, a courtesy notice. And then we have the public notice per ICO, the Irvine Zoning Ordinance. We did receive one comment that was just asking about the proposal staff was able to respond it's going to be a new antenna array the existing will be taken down no further comments or follow-up was needed and then there were no public comments as part of the official notice so therefore staff recommends the planning commission adopt resolution number 264076 for a new class 6 wireless facility this concludes our presentation are available for any questions thank you

Thank you for the presentation. Is the applicant present? Do you have any comments? Would you like to say anything? Okay, thank you. I'll open public comments on this item. Taya, do we have any public comments?

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. Chair, there are no public comments on this item.

Okay, thank you. Then I will close the public hearing and open the commission deliberations. If any of my fellow commissioners would like to speak, use the request to speak button. Questions, comments? Go ahead, Jeff.

Brett, I just want to confirm that

The fee ownership of this strip of land is under Edison's control? Correct. And the enclosure that sits on that, do we have any indication that the... applicant and SCE have a concurrent agreement to allow that enclosure to exist in perpetuity or in the 10-year review of the CUP?

No, I may defer to the applicant on the existing agreements between T-Mobile and SCE.

Good evening everyone. Yeah, so currently Sprint has a license there and that's their existing site through the whole merger between Sprint and T-Mobile. It's kind of just been left as a remnant and when T-Mobile got relocated from the other nearby lattice tower. This was kind of just ready-made for us to come and occupy. So our lease with SCE will run beyond the 10-year CEP, but there's termination rights that are in there. So if something were to happen, both parties would have viability to terminate that license, if that answers your question.

Okay. Is there an emergency generator on this site?

T-Mobile will not be proposing an emergency generator here. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You're welcome. I don't see any other requests to speak. I do see there's a battery backup. Would that be in lieu of the emergency generator? And then how long does that usually last in an emergency?

Yeah, so the... T-Mobile typically does have one battery backup cabinet. That's one of their two cabinets. Those will last usually around five hours on battery, which is usually enough to get us through whatever outages there might be in the area. So, yeah, about five hours.

Okay, thanks. I don't see any other commissioners wanting to speak. No? Yeah, I'll give you a motion, I guess.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 264076, APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE NEW CLASS VI WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY.

I'LL SECOND.

CAN WE PLEASE INITIATE THE VOTING?

CHAIR, THE MOTION HAS PASSED WITH THOSE PRESENT.

Oh, thank you. All right, so then I guess we will move on to item number one, the study session. Director Frady, could you please introduce this item?

Thank you, Chair. We now have a study session on potential public benefits associated with minimum density deviation allowances within the residential and residential mixed-use overlay. Leading your discussion tonight is Senior Planner Tiffany Lin, joined by Principal Planner Nick Maloney.

Thank you and good evening members of the Planning Commission. Again, the item before this evening is the public benefit study session. To provide some context for our discussion this evening, I'll briefly go over the history of the existing public benefit definition. The city's current general plan was adopted in fall of 2024 to align with the city's housing element and to comply with the state's regional housing needs allocation requirements. The general plan update and the associated zone change created a new residential and residential mixed use, or RMU, overlay over three areas of the city, which contain a majority of the units the city is required to plan for in the housing element. These areas include the Irvine Business Complex area, focus area one, the Greater Spectrum area, focus area two, and the Great Park Neighborhood Transit Village Area, Focus Area 3, where new development is encouraged to be higher density and developed in a manner that creates proximity villages to minimize travel distances and enhance accessibility. Residential development in the RRMU overlay currently requires a master plan submission, which is subject to Planning Commission review and approval. The RRMU overlay requires a minimum density of 50 dwelling units per acre, and as part of the master plan review process, the zoning ordinance currently allows for deviations from minimum density if one, it is demonstrated that the proposed housing project at the applicable location is not feasible, or two, if a project provides a significant and specific public benefit. Existing challenges with this density deviation criteria include the fact that the zoning ordinance does not define what a significant and specific public benefit may be. Additionally, the proposed public benefit is reviewed by staff as part of the entitlement review process, and approval of the proposed public benefit does not occur until the project is considered for approval at a public hearing. In order to address these existing challenges and to alleviate uncertainty during the planning review process, the purpose of this study session is to seek Planning Commission input on factors which may contribute to a determination that a proposed public benefit is significant and to invite any feedback from the development community. Again, city staff would like to hear from the Planning Commission on potential public benefits for these projects and what factors contribute to a significant and specific public benefit. On this slide, staff has compiled a list of potential public benefits, which include housing-related benefits, public facility and infrastructure improvements, community serving improvements, public benefit contributions such as monetary contribution packages, which could contribute to specific city initiatives, and other benefits proposed by an applicant which are consistent with city goals, policies, and priorities. In terms of the recommendation for this item, staff asked that the Planning Commission provide feedback on potential public benefits for residential projects in the RMU overlay and to provide input on what elements and factors may contribute to a significant and specific public benefit. Additionally, this study session invites input from the development community on the existing requirement and potential implications for project feasibility, predictability, and implementation. This concludes staff's presentation, and because this is a study session item, staff is not looking for formal action on this item this evening. Staff welcomes any questions and comments the commission may have for us, and we look forward to receiving your input.

Thank you. Can I open up the commissioner's questions? Do the right to speak? Request to speak? Anyone have questions, comments? No? No? Yeah, I guess we don't have that. Would you like to speak? I would like to speak. Then you've requested to speak. The old-fashioned way.

The old-fashioned way.

Go for it.

Thank you, guys, and thank you to staff for bringing up this really important topic. I think that we've been... Around this topic, on a number of different projects, nothing is directly, potentially one project directly addressed this issue. But, you know, I think, I just kind of want to highlight why I think we're getting here is because we set these three particular zoning areas as very suitable for higher density. We set that at the 50 dwelling units per acre as our definition of what we thought that higher level of density should be because those sites were suitable for them. They have a a very important contribution to our arena allocations. They are meant to help us to prevent any significant changes in our net loss, running into a net loss issue, especially in some of the more lower affordable categories. So the choice of an applicant potentially to ask for a waiver like this is a significant impact, not only on potential costs, but also on our ability to to meet our obligations under our regional housing needs. To me, I wanted to highlight that as to why, you know, one of the reasons I think this is coming up and so critical to us. I think that the most important thing as we discuss this is that we eventually have to come up with some type of a matrix type framework that creates a sense of evaluation of You've suggested a few benefits. I'm sure there's more that we can discuss and my colleagues and I will have ideas on. But ultimately, for an applicant and for current and future commission members, we need to figure out a way that it is as transparent and as... plug and play as possible meaning how do we compare let's say an affordable housing benefit to a street you know something that we're doing with the street benefit to something that we may do with the community program when possible we need to be able to get those into some type of evaluation matrix or framework. So I think that my initial vision of what this would look like would be some form of a tool where an applicant can say, if I go with this, I would need to have X number of units of affordable, for example, to offset a 10-dwelling unit reduction in my density or I will make X contribution to the Irvine connect transit program or to the meals nutrition program. Anything that is already in either an operating or a capital improvement budget already by the city because I don't think this body is going to be coming up with the ideas of what we should be doing with approved programs. so in my mind there's there's some type of an evaluation matrix um one thing that i just want to bring up and then i'll you know since this discussion whatever matrix we come up with our valuation has to really take a look at the at the housing affordability allocations that were in that location so certain locations have extremely low income or very low income the cost, if you will, or the public benefit required, that's a much better way of saying it, the benefit required for someone who is asking for a reduction in density in an area that was meeting an extremely low, very low or low income where we're struggling as every community is to meet the needs, needs to be a higher public benefit than those that are in the moderate income or certainly in the market rate, above moderate market rate where we're having more success in meeting our arena needs there. So that valuation matrix needs to be very weighted towards the challenges that loss of that density does to our ability to meet our arena goals. So I'm going to stop for now. I'd love to talk more about the types of different benefits we do, but I want to frame this as we're not trying to... Any conversation we have here is not trying to squeeze developers out of anything. It's not trying to say, you know, it's 100% a quid pro quo, but they are asking for a reduction in density. We have rezoned it. We've allowed the multi-use, the layer. We've already provided a benefit through the additional application or usage that they can have of that zone property, which is creating a significant uptick in value, which is why we're getting the applications of the land. They are now asking... A potential applicant in the scenario is then asking for an additional benefit. And so we have... We're not in 1988 where we have land everywhere and we're building. We are in an infill-type situation in many parts of our community, and we need to make sure that those benefits are truly, truly commensurate to the impacts that we have. So I'll pause here. I think we can discuss more on what those benefits might be, but I've been thinking a lot about what the framework and all of this means, and I just wanted to share that with my fellow commissioners.

Thank you, Commissioner Grossman. Commissioner Bathia?

No, thank you for that. And thank you, Commissioner Roseman, for that very nice explanation. I mean, I wanted to know and I would ask staff if in terms of affordable housing would basically an extremely low or very low housing element be more desirable for a community benefit or public benefit versus standard income levels? Or does it just vary from project to project?

That's one of the options in terms of the list of options that are available. Staff has presented this list, but we're really seeking commission feedback in terms of what potential benefits you would like to see come forward with a lot of these projects.

What does staff see as the greater weight of importance when it comes to affordable housing versus infrastructure, mobility, community amenities, and parks? What is your take on that? I just want to know.

Well, from a planning perspective, I think affordable housing is something that's most desirable. We have a really lofty arena goal, and we need to do our best to achieve that goal. And we're going to be held to it by the state. So I'd say it's one of the top priorities.

Okay, no, that's great. I mean, we're nowhere close to getting our housing element decertified or anything, so we're in a good cushion, right? We're not, there's luxury to balance it where you're not always focused on it versus...

We, yes, we are looking at no net loss. And so there are many projects now that are coming in on housing element sites that are not meeting the affordability assumptions that we had assumed in the housing element. And because that's happening, the wiggle room we had is now getting less and less.

Okay, no, thank you for that. I mean, one thing we want to deter from is a builder's remedy and folks coming in there and doing whatever they please and the state taking control. So I appreciate that. No further questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Bhatia. Commissioner Mansfield?

Yeah, I think it's obviously it's important that we have to stay on task with meeting our goals and our deadlines. I do think we do owe it to our residents to make sure that the housing that is developed is the highest quality possible and to the Irvine standard. I think we do really need to take caution of that so we're not building way too fast just to meet a goal.

Thank you for your comments. Would you like to speak, Commissioner Pearson?

Yeah, I think the real objective of this is to give staff A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE WANT AS A PLANNING COMMISSION SO THEY CAN RELAY TO A POTENTIAL APPLICANT AND HAVE A SERIES OF BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO THEM THAT STAFF CAN RENDER A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD UTILIZING you know, what we've got as, you know, the ideas for the benefits and for a project moving forward. I think that, you know, I appreciate what both my fellow commissioners have said. I think it is very important to give the feeling to the development community that there is a potential and they're not gonna be spending a lot of upfront financial, or just the cost of getting to a point to be presenting it to us as a planning commission. I would rather have staff be able to render a decision and give comfort to an applicant that that decision is going to be acceptable to the Planning Commission. I do have a question when it gets into the housing benefits. How does this relate to the statutory requirements or the statutory opportunities to an applicant for going to the affordable housing side and waivers and certain benefits that they would receive from that? Does this correlate together?

It does. So if a project is providing enhanced affordability, they would potentially be entitled to more incentives and concessions under state density bonus law than if they were providing what's currently required under code. But it depends on what they come up with.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner Pearson. I guess I have a couple of comments and questions. What I see is these zones would have different needs for what's lacking now. For Focus Area 1, we often hear about the Quimby money, so we're not getting any parks built with the projects. And the city, I think, is going to struggle to find land to put parks over there. which I think long-term is not a great place to be for the city. Excuse me. Focus Area 2, while also lacking parks, that might be a good place for us to focus a public benefit towards more transportation options since the train station is there and that could connect us out to the rest of the city. Focus Area 3 probably doesn't need any more parks. It's not going to get any greater, but we could use more affordability there because I believe what has been built by Five Points is... a low percentage compared to what our code calls for now. The other thing I would suggest is a lot of the projects we see are coming in like 15, 17 units per acre, which is really far off of 50. But it should probably be a different community benefit ask if it's 20 units or if it's 40. I don't think anyone's going to do 50, but maybe it should be a sliding scale or steps. to what we're asking to compensate for the lack of additional units. But I do agree that probably the first thing we should be looking for is more affordable because that is our long-term goal and something we need to make happen. That's all I have to offer. Does anyone else have?

Chair, can I interject real quick? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Sure. If you don't mind. I did want to mention we do have some callers on Zoom. If you wanted to maybe see if we have any public comments on this before we do another round. Oh, yeah.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Let's do public comments.

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. Chair, there are no public comments.

OK, thank you.

May I interject one more time? Yeah, of course. Sorry. And then I did have something. So staff, in speaking with a lot of the applicants on these projects, one thing that keeps coming up is uncertainty with this process as a whole on the part of the applicants. And the uncertainty comes in not knowing what the Planning Commission is going to say throughout the entitlement process. And so the applicants are saying they could get all the way through the entitlement process with an idea of what the public benefit could be, and staff could be on board, but then they could get to the planning commission at the very end only to have the commission say, no, we don't like it. So for your consideration, staff had thought about maybe there's some sort of way we could bring the projects before the planning commission early on in the entitlement process to present what their public benefit idea is to get some feedback at the beginning rather than at the end.

I think that's a great solution. I think we all appreciate being involved in the process earlier on to give our input.

So at least to give them some surety up front that they're going in the right direction with their public benefit at the beginning rather than at the end.

Yeah, I think that's great. My commissioners want to weigh in on that.

All right. I respectfully disagree. Okay. While I like the idea of where we're going with that, I still disagree because I think we need to see the overall project of what it's going to look like at the end of the line, not at the beginning, because things can rotate and change before we get to the actual finished proposed project versus what the spirit of it is at the start. That would be a fear I have.

I can see that. Commissioner Bathia?

I differ. I think having an early scoping would be advisable. Having sort of these early reviews, conceptual reviews would be necessary and perhaps having some study sessions early on would help. That being said, could we as a planning commission also heed to the advice of other commissions such as the finance if it entails different scope of you know, dollars of what needs to be done, and maybe the community parks and library or any other commissions, transportation, are we as a governing body able to at least have some recommendations for them, or how does that work in terms of planning? I don't want to stall a process, but I just want to know if that could be streamlined.

So I think this process, it would totally be up to the commission's creation. So it would be up for you to decide. To, I think, assuage your concern, Commissioner Mansfield, I don't think you'd necessarily need to give a firm approval at the beginning. But just to kind of say, yeah, you're on the right track. And then save your official approval to the end when you do see the entire project completed. I think that would be helpful for an applicant just to know that they're on the right track to start. But then the decision is at the end of the project. So maybe that would be helpful.

I think we all would agree on the concept of trying to give upfront clarity and guidance so that not a lot of time, staff time, applicant time, our time is wasted. I mean, that's kind of, you know, later on we're going to be approving standards and conditions, and that was the intention of that approach, to make sure everything is transparent and clear. I just feel like the only way to do that, honestly, is not just sort of a discussion amongst the seven members of the Commission. It's through a pre-approved valuation framework that is there. So, for example... If you reduce it from 50 to 40, right, dwelling units per acre, let's say that was on a three acre site, that maybe goes from 150 units to 120 units, just for the sake of discussion. So that's a 30 unit loss. Now within that 30 unit, we know what the rough allocation was going to be of, that we had put in RHNA for that site, for very low, low, and we can create a, well, hundred thousand dollars and I'm totally I'm not making up the number but I'm I'm using it as a placeholder number for every lost unit that's at a moderate we're gonna go with a base level that has to be a hundred thousand dollars of a community benefit if it was a loss of a very low there's a multiplier to that because that's much harder for us to replace if it's market rate maybe it's you know less but there's a essentially a tool. And if they come back and say, based upon that loss of density and housing units that we have, we have a $7.4 million gap. Now we look at all the benefits that I think staff has highlighted, and we can talk about them individually, some of them, but what's that worth? A direct financial contribution to the transit program is a $7.4 million contribution. It's a $7.4 million fill the gap. development of an open space is harder so we have to then bucket it by easy to value moderate to value and some that are harder to value but still desirable so i i don't where i'm coming at and i'll just finish my thought is that i prefer it's not a conversation i'd like it to be as formulaic as possible to give the applicant developer community as much guidance up front as possible

Yeah, to go off what Commissioner Grossman is saying, I picture it as something like the in lieu Instead of affordable housing where you can pay the fee or put it somewhere else, I thought the framework would look something like that, where a developer could decide, you know, we would decide what was appropriate and then the developer would say, well, on this project I can provide more open space, but I can't provide more affordable housing. Or, well, I can give more affordable housing, but there's no place to put a park. So I would think it would make it more flexible for them and maybe it not be, feel as arbitrary as to what we're deciding for each project. So I would fear that would get called into question if we're not giving everyone the same offer. Does that make sense? Mr. Mansfield?

All right. To further chime in on that, I think if we do develop a framework, it needs to be as simple as possible, something very simple that we can still decide on. I mean, that's the point of the planning commission is that we have to review everything and go through it and then vote on it. I think some very basic commonalities, like the percentage of the property is going to be dedicated to low income versus more, yada, yada, yada. If we can develop, if we are going to develop a framework, I think we need to keep it exceptionally simple just so that we can further deliberate on it and explore it as a committee.

I agree. Director Frady, would you like to?

Yes. So we had initially toyed with the idea of something more formulaic, fee-based. And in looking into how to go about implementing that, it's more complicated than we initially thought. That has to be backed up by a substantial fee study. That would be something that the city council would have to initiate and approve. So it wouldn't be something that we would be able to do here at the planning commission level. So there's a lot more to it.

Okay. Well, I think we're open to different ways to achieving this. But I think the general... frame of mind we're in is something that supports that without having to go to the council.

Well, I'm not, depending, obviously we'd have to look at a proposal from a, I'm assuming what you're saying is a consultant would have to come in and do that type of a fee study, and I have no idea the exact cost of that, so I'd reserve comment until I knew how much that cost, but having said that, this potentially is talking about tens of millions of dollars of impact or benefits that are going to be coming into the city. And so I wouldn't be opposed to potentially spending money to make sure that we get it right. Now, again, reserving how much that costs in the end. I mean, I do think we have to come back and recognize that we don't have to approve. a reduction of density. There was a lot of discussion and debate on this council, you know, commission before us and others of why we created the 50 dwelling units per acre density. It met a lot of the goals of the city as required in RENA and also for our overall goals. So in order for us to approve an exception, it shouldn't be the norm that we're approving. It should be an exception that we're seeking a waiver here. And the benefits need to be absolutely commensurate to the exception that the developer community is asking for. So, I would think that our commission's mindset going in is that waivers are going to be not some, not routinely approved. They have to meet the standards that we approved in the first place. So then this isn't just like pay your loo fee of affordable housing. So I want this to be rare. What we really want is for the units to be built. I mean, that's why we zoned it for build. So it has to be a strong community benefit and a strong valuation methodology behind this that we can defend you know, defend. But I will agree, housing is clearly the most important criteria. We want the housing built.

I would see going with the consultant and then approval of the city council would add a lot of time to it. And I think we have projects pending that we then may miss out on any type of community benefit because we've prolonged our deliberation on what to adopt.

Yeah. I'm not sure I'm understanding your concern.

I think if we try to do something that can stay at the Planning Commission, it would be relatively straightforward and fast. Whereas if we went the other route and hired a fee consultant, and I don't know how many months that would take, and then tried to get it before the City Council, we'd approve projects in the interim that wouldn't have this framework applied to it. Whereas I think what we're trying to do here is find a happy medium of a framework we can live with that also gets applied to projects sooner rather than later. Am I correct in thinking that?

That's correct. And then we've also pulled up a slide here that just gives you an idea of the pending projects that we have. So we have quite a few that are in the queue right now. You'll see that densities vary. So there are some that are really up there. Yep, there are some.

Now I'd also like to highlight the items that are highlighted in green or with green background, those are projects that have already been approved.

Can you, when you, one of them is in dwelling units per acre, one of them is in units. So when you say, just like, just take the top line, 60.8 dwelling units per acre, and then 221 units, how does 221 units equate to... Help me understand how I can, when someone, or take the second one, when a 16.2 one has 412 units, if it was 50 dwelling units per acre, what would have been the actual number of units? If they had met, if they had followed the original overlay requirements. There are two metrics here, and I'm not doing the math in my head very well.

We're going to do some quick math for you. OK, so what is missing from the table is, of course, the acreage. But for example, on the first table under focus area one, the project in green at one six, that's nine six nine on Carmen. that at 50 dwelling units per acre, that project would have provided a minimum of 1,271 dwelling units, as opposed to the 412 that were approved in that case. So just to give a sense of that example.

Essentially, it's the number of units based on the size of the site.

Okay, so we have, let's say, an 800-unit loss here of which you had a breakdown of the affordable outlay that was on that, you know, that we put in the RENA allocation for that site, right? So the certain percentage of that was affordable to begin with, a minimal 15%, and then how it was broken down.

Commissioner Grossman, this is the Von Karman Corporate Center site. I wouldn't use this as a good example. This is an outlier.

Yeah, I think it's an outlier.

Okay. I wouldn't. I would just cross this one out. We didn't have any on-site affordable here.

No, we...

I wouldn't look at this as a good example of density at all because it was very low.

Remember that was a warehouse that got converted to... Oh, yeah. Oh, I think they remember that.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely.

We are seeing projects come in at lower densities because market conditions are such that where we were seeing 90 dwelling units per acre at the time the RRMU was created, we established 50 thinking we would have a pretty easy target to meet that minimum density. But now market conditions are such that townhomes are becoming more affordable to construct because they don't require elevators or steel construction. And labor costs have gone up. All costs have gone up, essentially. So we're seeing projects like that pencil out more than apartment projects. Not to say that they don't pencil, but that's generally where the trend has come into play. And you'll see like the project 2400 Barranca where the townhomes are being sold kind of help offset the cost associated with the affordable apartments on site. So even in a project that has higher density, there's still higher market rate townhomes being built. That's the trend right now. So that's what we expect to see and why there are so many projects generally under that 50 dwelling units per acre.

Give Commissioner Mansfield a chance.

Yes. So I'd like to propose a possible joint session, joint study session with the city council. See what they have to say to weigh in on this. I mean, there's a lot of rotating factors here, especially with the public benefits. I think the city council might want, have something to say about that as well.

Commissioner Pearson.

Yeah. Yeah. I think one of the considerations that we need to look at is that not all sites are physically able to generate a yield of 50 DUs per acre. And to penalize a developer that is falling short on his DU per acre will probably stop the project. And our ultimate goal is, in this case, to be able to allow housing projects with the variations of affordability to take place. So I just wanna, we need to be very careful on how we equate the loss of units that a project may yield compared to the 50 thieves per acre.

Yeah, we definitely have to strike a balance. And I think that's the difficulty in what we're trying to do, right?

Commissioner Pearson, I think the ordinance currently, the way it's written, allows two times where they can apply for a variance. One is if it's in feasibility. You're absolutely correct. If the parcel of land is not capable of doing it, they can apply for a density reduction. I don't think that's really where we're asking for the benefits as much because they physically cannot do it. We can't penalize them, as you said. The issue here is more when somebody does have the ability to achieve the 50 DU per acre density requirement, but they choose not to, either for profitability purposes or for marketing purposes. They're making a business decision to do a lower density. And that's in direct conflict with the objectives and goals set out in the overlay that was debated tremendously. Now, we could go back and debate whether or not the 50 DU per acre density is still the correct metric and standard that we do. That would be a different discussion than we've put up for the study session on the benefits required. But it might be the right discussion based on what Alyssa just shared with us, you know, so clearly. But here we're talking about people who have the opportunity, have the ability to do it, and are choosing not to.

And the issue is it's a market-driven development. And If our goal is to develop housing units, but the market is only 25 DUs per acre, then nobody will develop because of the potential penalties.

It's fair. But I would just say we chose to create these three specific focus areas. There are many places to develop still in the city that are not in those three specific focus areas. But we, and I'm using the collective royal we of we, the planning commission passed and city council have said, these three specific areas we believe need to have this higher density. Now, like I said, we could debate whether the 50 you is still accurate. But if it's not, then we have to go back to our arena allocation and state what it is. Because if you take that 50 dwelling units and drop it to 25 using your hypothetical market rate scenario, am I correct to assume that we might be in danger of net loss in a few categories?

We're already there.

If we revisited the 50 dwelling units per acre in the three focus areas and reduced 50% of them to a 25D requirement, would we be in danger of net loss?

Yes, but we are already there without doing that.

Excuse me?

We are already at that point without even doing that.

Correct. We are.

Yeah.

The other thing is that we really can't down zone at this point. So the state doesn't allow us to take density and go down. So we are where we are. I think we wish we knew what market conditions would be and how low the densities would be when we developed the RRMU, but we don't really have the option to go down.

So what happens if a developer brings a project that's 20 units per acre and we want 50? Are we within our right to say no? Or can they come back and say, well, this is housing. I'll just go around you and get it approved.

You can't let our city attorney weigh in. Yeah, I'll let her weigh in.

Good, easy question with a complicated answer. So technically under our ordinance, this is a discretionary determination, right? Is there a significant and specific public benefit? If you can't make that finding, then you could deny the project. However, there could be other legal consequences. For instance, Housing Accountability Act has other findings that might be required in order to deny a project. So that would be a separate analysis that we would have to do based on the individual project.

Okay. Thank you. You're saying based on the current overlay and the density bonus that we have in place, if we determine that the public benefit is insufficient, we are absolutely within our legal balance to deny that, putting us potentially at risk for other conversations. But under that ordinance, what I'm hearing is, I mean, that's the question I think that the Planning Commission actually has. Is the community and public benefit sufficient to justify a density bonus reduction?

So, right, if you look at our code, we do have the authority to deny a project if we cannot make the finding that there is a significant and specific public benefit. However, there are other state laws that also govern when we can deny or even conditionally approve projects. And so we would have to make sure that in denying this project, even though we can't make the finding, we aren't running afoul of those state laws as well. So that's a very legal answer, right? The short answer is maybe. You can do it under our code, but we might be in trouble under other Housing Accountability Act related laws.

Right.

I mean, I think fundamentally, though, the issue, as you're saying, we're already at the border on many net loss areas. We need the housing to be built. Building it at a lower level doesn't actually really help because it takes away more more of that opportunity to build at the lower incomes primarily than the benefit that we're getting from a little bit of an additional housing. the benefit must be high and commensurate. And the only way I can think about doing is going towards an equivalent of a unit, what is a valuation based on that unit, and then to establish the net loss, and then establishing valuations of each of the benefits that they are offering and whether they meet that And if they're close, then this Planning Commission has the discretion to be able to say, yeah, okay, we're off 2%. I'm not, you know, that's a very reasonable margin of error. We're going to approve it. It's off 40%. You needed 10 million and you're only offering 4 million in benefits. Sorry, please, please go back and revisit this project. That feels like it has to be, but not just summarily approving.

Commissioner Bhatia and Commissioner Mansfield.

Are there any other cities that are adopting this where the Planning Commission is a body that can, you know, have their own say in terms of community benefits like San Jose or anywhere in California for that matter?

I believe that there are some cities that are looking at establishing public benefit, but it's very, very new. As you mentioned, San Jose has some information on their website regarding it. Oftentimes you see it in these categories of affordable housing or infrastructure improvements. So it's very hard. There's not like a huge track record or portfolio of examples where you can go to. And again, every jurisdiction is different on what they're looking for. And so it's one of those things where it's very difficult to have like an objective design standard, right, that is consistent across every jurisdiction because a public benefit for Irvine is going to be a lot different than a public benefit for Merced. So it's one of those dynamic subject matters that are out there, and we're starting to see it as just incentives to get people to build more housing and take into consideration the community needs.

Okay, thank you. And for Director Frady, you mentioned obviously having early scoping or early sessions would help. Is that just in your term considered efficient way of doing things from the applicant standpoint, but also from the project where they deter from scope and you can save money on architectural drawings and what have you?

I don't necessarily think it would change what the project would look like necessarily. But I think it would give some surety to the applicants as they move forward through the process. I think it would also help staff because we really aren't sure as staff what the planning commission is going to want. So we get a lot of questions from applicants on what the benefits should be. And we're really not the ones in the end that are going to answer that question. So to get that feedback from the Planning Commission early on when we're getting those questions would be helpful for us.

All right. Thank you.

Chair, there's a speaker in the queue. I don't know if you're still taking speakers.

How about Commissioner Mansfield, then Mr. Strater, you want to make a comment? Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I mean, to go with the public benefits, we also have to look at the public costs of the development, too. What is the development going to look like on transportation, use of public services, our fire, police, EMS, the influx of residents in the local schools, all the public schools that we have? I think that's another way we're going to have to quantify what is a public benefit and what's not a public benefit, or what's going to come with the public cost as well. Exactly.

Mr. Schrader, would you like to make a comment? I know you represent a lot of applicants.

Yes, thank you, and I apologize for my informal dress. I was not planning to speak tonight, and I was working on a project in a warehouse, so I was dressed informally. But I wanted to give a little feedback to the discussion right here. On behalf of most of the development community, clearly not all, we would not be looking for additional public hearings or public scoping sessions. That does not actually help in terms of getting to the finish line. I want to point out that the HCD letter to the city of Irvine for the sixth housing element, housing cycle that we're in right now, said that the city's CUP, now master plan process itself, is a constraint on housing. Fine, we're okay with the process, but adding more steps and more public hearings is definitely not something we're looking for. We have a fairly good ability to judge what will pass the muster of the Planning Commission, and if somebody doesn't, I would guess that they could request something like that. So if you're looking to offer applicants a voluntary meeting to do a scoping, that I support all day long. But mandatory, I would definitely not support. It is hard enough to get through this process with the numerous screen checks. Most of my projects are now four and five screen checks. We've got separate screen checks on affordable housing plans. We've got separate screen checks on park plans, separate screen checks on tentative track maps, separate screen checks on CUPs or master plans. Literally the last thing on earth I want is another hearing or even a study session at the beginning of the process before we've thought through all the issues. That would not be a welcome step for me or most of my clients It's great to have certainty, but there's no such thing as certainty. We've got a certain zoning code that we look at, and then we've got precedent that we look at. What we don't want is a check-in at the beginning of the process while we're still designing on the fly in many cases. And many times the very first thing I do when I get up at a project is thank staff for the collaboration. The first version that we submit is never the version you're going to see, ever, not once. It collaborates. It evolves. It goes through the process. I would be totally embarrassed to show you our first applications most of the time. So I don't support that. If somebody wants it, I very much support if you're willing to give them your time and feedback and somebody says, I'm not going to move forward without getting feedback, that's a great idea. Voluntary scoping on public benefit would be great. mandatory, not so great. One other comment. I just wanted to read to you again from state code to just kind of put this in perspective. And I can speak to other cities because I've got a bunch of projects in other cities. So California housing element law establishes a statewide precedent that recognizes 30 dwelling units per acre as the minimum density generally presumed appropriate to facilitate lower income housing in metropolitan jurisdictions. Pursuant to government code section 65583.2, subset C3B, the California Department of Housing and Community Development utilizes default density standards to determine whether sites are considered suitable to accommodate lower income RHNA allocations. For metropolitan jurisdictions, including Orange County, HCD identifies 30 dwelling units per acre as the applicable default density threshold. Accordingly, densities materially below 30 dwelling units per acre are inconsistent

Thank you. Your time is up, but I'll defer to the chair if you'd like to.

Yeah, we can let him finish. I think we know where it's going to finish. But yeah, go ahead.

One more sentence. So accordingly, densities are inconsistent with density assumptions commonly used by HCD. So the argument that I just was reading to you would be that the 50 was an assumption that was made as a planning document to prove to the state that you could satisfy your arena numbers which i will give the city credit were were horrible compared to other cities the next one down was anaheim at like 18 000 cities like newport beach are at 4 800 so to put 23 000 on the back of irvine is is patently unfair but with that said the 30 to the acre is the generally recognized density upon which an appropriate infill project should be. And just speaking on behalf of the development community, the highest land residual today is a 20 to the acre for sale product. And anything that's going to be a multifamily product is going to come in well above 50, closer to 60, 70 to the acre. I want to, you know, warn you to not spend too much time thinking about like 40 to the acre. You're never going to see it. You're going to see averages where it's like the Atrium Hotel. You've got a for sale and you've got a for rent product. 2400 Bronco had a for sale and a for rent. So the people that are trying to comply are giving you average densities across a parcel. You're never going to see anything between, say, 50 and 24. In between that, there's no market for it. The costs are too high. So I just wanted to give you the reality of the marketplace is it's either for sale that's 24 and down, or it's for rent that's typically 50 up to about 80 to the acre that we've seen. So I can answer any other questions. Newport Beach has the same assumptions, but they have supported all of the for sale low density projects that have come through recently. And their approach basically is any housing gets them to the finish line. Even if it's not meeting the specific requirements of the overlay, they're taking the approach of any unit is a good unit for purposes of showing the state they're trying to comply.

Thank you for your comments. Appreciate your perspective. I don't know how we, I know you don't want a recommendation, but how do we get to a conclusion of this item? Do you feel you have enough feedback to take it back to the drawing board? Sure. Okay, good. I don't think we have to do anything for this one. Sure, go ahead, Commissioner.

Just one question. So Mr. Strader talked about Newport's any unit is a good unit. Can you, just for the sake of education, if we were to have a parcel of land that goes to a lower density and it forces us into a net loss, what is the implications to the city?

If a project has a situation where we're It's creating a no net loss issue, which as Stephanie or Director Frady mentioned, we're almost already in that situation. The city is going to be required to find an alternate site that could demonstrate the capacity that was lost on the proposed site somewhere else. And that is something that has to be done within 180 days. So you could approve a project that has a no net loss issue, but that starts our requirement to find an alternate site.

And were there lots and lots of sites that you didn't choose during the time when we did this in the first place? I think I'm being rhetorical. I know the answer is there were not many more sites, right?

No.

Maybe we should move on to the consent calendar now.

Right? I don't know. It's an easy one. It's just the minutes. All items will be listed and will be enacted by one vote. There'll be no discussion unless members of the Planning Commission request specific items to be removed. I'll open to public comments. Are there any public comments on the minutes?

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. Chair, there are no public comments on this item.

I'll open the commission deliberations. Does anyone have any comments on the meetings? If not, I'll take a motion. Any comments? No? I'll move to approve the minutes. Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you. That was harder than it had to be. Can we please set up the voting?

Chair, the motion has passed with those present. I'd like to make note that Commissioner Bhatia has abstained.

Oh, that's right. You missed it. Okay. Thank you. All right. So on to item number three. I'm going to open the public hearing and ask Director Frey to introduce the item.

Thank you, Chair. The next item is a master plan for a new single family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit with a variance for reduced front yard or front building setback at 16972 Culver Drive in Planning Area 15, Woodbridge. Staff is once again recommending the Planning Commission continue the public hearing. TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2026. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT HOA CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS TRYING TO WORK OUT THEIR ISSUE ON THIS PROJECT AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE THAT CONCLUDED BY THE JUNE 18TH MEETING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE THE APPLICANT HERE, SO CAN WE JUST OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE?

Chair, it looks like our applicant is attending via Zoom. Oh, I apologize. So I'll ask him to unmute in case he would like to say something to the commission.

Oh, wonderful. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Piotr, go ahead.

Thank you, commissioners. I am here to answer the questions. The negotiation with the association has been slow because we're dealing with an association and a committee, but we are making progress and we hope to be able to come to you in June with a resolution.

All right. Thank you. Sounds encouraging. I guess we'll go to public comments now?

Okay.

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. Chair, there are no public comments on this item.

Oh, I think we have... I saw his name up earlier. I don't think maybe because we changed the order, maybe it got lost somewhere.

Good evening, Commissioner and members. My name is William Sarris. I'm here on behalf of the Woodbridge Cottage Maintenance Association. We're supporting the continuance. I did want to let the commission know we've retained outside counsel to work with the applicant. There's probably two main issues. One is the easement, and one is with the designs on the house. We definitely need more time to see if we can come to a compromise. And that's all I have to say.

OK. Thank you. So we're not going to close the public hearing because we're going to continue it. Are there any commission questions, comments? It's a question for staff.

How many times do we continue something before we ask for it to be taken off and brought back at a later date?

Sure. This is going to be the last time we're going to continue to a date certain. So if we don't have a resolution next time, we'll continue to a date uncertain.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we continue this to a date certain of June 18, 2026. Second.

So then that'll be an up or down vote on June 18th? Since it's a date certain and not uncertain?

If we are not ready to vote on the project on the 18th, we will continue to a date uncertain. And then it will come off your agenda moving forward.

So we'll have to vote again?

If it does come back, yes.

OK. Please set the voting.

Small technicality. Oh, sorry. If it's a date uncertain, we actually don't have to vote on it. It just means that when we bring it back, we have to re-notice it.

So your recommendation tonight was a date uncertain.

Tonight, we're continuing to June 18th.

Oh, to June 18th. I apologize. Okay. All right. I think we're ready to vote.

The motion to continue the item to June 18th has passed with those present.

Wonderful. All right, number four. I'm going to open the public hearing for that item. Director Frady, could you please introduce the item?

Thank you. This is a zoning text amendment to allow accessory retail uses in Planning Area 25, University Research Park. Staff in this instance is recommending the Planning Commission continue this public hearing to a date uncertain.

All right, so the applicant's not here. Do we have any public comment?

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. There are no comments on this item.

Okay, we'll open the commission deliberations. Barring no deliberations, we can do a motion to continue to the date uncertain. All right. I'll second.

I second.

Farage will second. Second. Could we please vote?

Chair, the motion has passed with those present.

All right, now we'll move on to number six, which is our business items. Director Frady, can you please introduce our business item?

The last item tonight is the City of Irvine Standard Conditions Update. Presenting is Senior Planner Tiffany Lin, joined by Principal Planner Nick Maloney.

Thank you, Director Frady, and hello again, members of the Planning Commission. Again, this item before you is the Standard Conditions Update. Standard conditions provide for consistent uniform language for commonly applied project requirements and are used on a case-by-case basis depending on project needs. The purpose of this update is to align the standard conditions with current regulations and best practices. The standard conditions item was presented to the Planning Commission initially on April 16th, where general feedback was provided by the Commission. The item was continued to allow for additional time for stakeholder review and discussion. Following the hearing, staff reached out to interested stakeholders and met with one stakeholder to go over the list of standard conditions. Revisions were made to the list to address Commission and stakeholder feedback, which are listed in this slide. Generally, the changes provide more background and procedural information, refine timing triggers for certain conditions, modify conditions related to affordable housing, introduce a new condition to address construction vehicle circulation, and incorporate minor corrections for formatting and reference purposes. Overall, the changes provide for an updated list of standard conditions with a more robust background informational section, as well as standard conditions that address all stakeholder comments. The specific changes to the conditions between the prior meeting and tonight's meeting are shown in red lines in attachment two of the agenda packet. In terms of environmental review, this project is exempt from CEQA analysis pursuant to the CEQA guidelines section listed in this slide, which is a common sense exemption. And as previously mentioned, staff has continued to work with relevant stakeholders throughout the review process for the standard conditions update. Following the April 16th hearing, staff met with one stakeholder where additional feedback was provided related to affordable housing and construction hours conditions, which have both been addressed in the revised list of standard conditions. Overall, the updated standard conditions provide a comprehensive framework to guide development and ensure long-term project compliance. The update reflects current regulations, improves clarity and usability for both applicants and staff, incorporates stakeholder input, and most importantly, modernizes a document that has not been comprehensively updated since 2009. With that, staff does recommend the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, approving an update to the City of Irvine standard conditions. This concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for any questions.

Thank you. Appreciate it. I assume we have lots of public comments, so let's open public comments.

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. There are no public comments on this item. Nope.

Pikachu face. Let's see here. Zoom prompt. So any deliberations from our commissioners?

Questions, comments? Thank you. Thank you to staff for the presentation. I just want to compliment staff. This is one of the... You guys are always incredibly responsive to our comments, but I really believe this is one of the times where a lot of the feedback that you got was 100% reflected in the revised documents, specifically some of the conversations around creating a matrix on who has decision-making authority I think was a massive, massive... useful tool. I think the trigger language about when something gets in was an incredibly significant improvement. Also trying to create a little bit more clarity while retaining discretion for the director on what does it mean at the discretion of the director. I think there was A NICE BALANCE STRUCK THERE. MY ONLY QUESTION IS, AS ANY DOCUMENT IS A LIVING DOCUMENT, I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS. I THINK THE IMPROVEMENT IS SIGNIFICANT. BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FIND SOMETHING SMALL AND DOES IT COME BACK TO US OR ARE YOU ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES? JUST EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT WORKS.

MINOR MODIFICATIONS CAN BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

I appreciate the time spent on this update. It incorporates a lot of the things that, as was said, we've talked about in our deliberations as a planning commission. I think that adding the items that have been added and cutting out some of the things that were superfluous is uh very good and mr chairman i am very happy with the uh changes and i'm i wish these were in place uh uh for the last couple months oh okay um thank you uh commissioner mansfield would you like to

My only comment is thank you for all your hard work that you do. Obviously, it takes a lot of time to go through and redline everything and update everything to a modern standard since 2009. So this is very, very much needed. Thank you.

Commissioner Bathia?

I also want to thank you for getting this underway. Thanks. Nothing else.

Yeah, I would like to say I like the improvements and the changes. I especially like the construction traffic that you added based on my request. That was exactly what I was thinking of. I could have never said it that eloquently, but yeah, it really fit the bill. I have one question about, it's on page 67. It's 6.38 about birds nesting. Everyone thought I was crazy when I asked about the cell tower. So does this apply just to trees, or if someone needs to work on a cell tower, And there's like, I don't know, some kind of nest up there. Does that get pushed back, that work, to not disturb the nest? Who regulates this? And do people actually do studies of what's nesting? Because I've seen people just cutting down stuff like crazy all over the city the past couple weeks. I don't think any of these guys are looking for birds first.

The reality is they are supposed to be, but we know they're probably not. I believe the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates violations associated with the Nesting Bird Treaty Act, or Migratory Bird Treaty Act rather. That act protects birds for nine months of the year, so that's why you see violations all the time. In my past life as an environmental consultant, I had only ever seen this in the context of trees, but I don't know offhand if it applies to areas where they could potentially be nesting outside of natural vegetation.

I think that the addition of this condition, because we never had one related to nesting birds, will be helpful moving forward because we can add this to projects and our inspectors in the field can can be knowledgeable about this condition and look out for it while they're watching construction projects go forward. I do also want to acknowledge the tree removal. We've had a lot of code enforcement lately related to that. We have been modifying a process in our business license team, whereby when we're issuing licenses to landscape companies, We're now going to be attaching our tree removal ordinance so that they're made blatantly aware of what those rules are when they get their licenses every year.

I appreciate the proactive nature of that. I have seen a couple of nests on the ground, so I always wonder what could be done to prevent that. That's all I've got. I think we need a motion to approve if no one else has comments.

I'll so move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution number 264072, approving an update to the City of Irvine standard conditions.

Second that.

Wonderful. Can we please stop the voting?

Chair, the motion has passed with those present. Good job.

Wonderful. So the next will adjourn and advise that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Thursday, June 4th, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. It's now 6.51 and I declare the meeting of May 21st, 2026 adjourned.