Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There's a June order. Take you please do the roll call. Hey, Rob.

Commissioner Pearson.

Present.

Commissioner Mansfield.

Present.

Commissioner Grossman. Commissioner Grossman is absent this evening. Commissioner De La Cusack.

Here.

Commissioner Bhatia.

Here.

Vice Chair Lin. Here. Chair Stark.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. So anyone who can rise, please rise, and we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bhatia.

Place your right hand over your heart and repeat after me. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Hey, so it looks like we are going to start with a presentation on affordable housing. Director Frady, could you please introduce the item?

Thank you. We have a presentation from our housing manager, Heta Mosesman, entitled Affordable Housing Needs, Challenges, and Solutions.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Heta Mosesman. I'm the city's housing manager, and I am here this evening to provide some information on affordable housing needs, challenges, and solutions. Am I connected? Okay. Okay. Great, there we go. So just by way of information, the topics I was going to cover tonight are to define what affordable housing is, who qualifies for it, what the needs are, why isn't there more of it, some solutions and trends in the industry, and then I'm happy to answer any questions. So to start, what is affordable housing? It can be sort of an interesting term that is used a lot, especially these days. There are some state and federal guidance and laws around this. So generally, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development gives a guideline that housing costs should not exceed 30% of a household's gross income. So that's generally the guideline that's used sort of across the board. This can be income-restricted apartments or for sale units. And these can consist of 100 percent affordable projects where all units were affordable or mixed income projects where you have probably mostly market rate units with some affordable mixed in. It really allows this 30 percent rule allows households money for other things like food, transportation and child care. And the state defines affordable housing as housing that's within reach or affordable to households at 120% of county median income or less. So that's kind of like the ceiling in terms of income levels. Just a little bit of data from the city's housing element. Housing cost burden is usually defined at households that spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing. And so the data tells us from the census that 15% of the households in Irvine are at extremely low income, and that would be 30% of the county median. income. 50% or about half the renters do spend more than 30% of their gross income on rent. And a quarter of that number of that 50% spend over 50% of their income on rent. And that's considered severely cost burdened. So when we talk about affordable housing, sometimes the question is who are we talking about, what incomes are we talking about, what rents, things like that. So this table really sort of illustrates that. The California Health and Safety Code has definitions for income categories at very low, low and moderate generally. Very low is 50% of that county median income or AMI and below, low income is 50 to 80% and moderate is 80 to 120%. And that really translates into these salary ranges you see here. So for very low, it's anywhere from 59,000 to 85,000. And then for moderate, it's about 115,000 to 164,000 combined household income. That translates for rents, just by way of example, and this would include utility allowance, which is a few hundred dollars. For very low rents, those would be about $1,300 to $1,900 a month, whereas moderate would be $2,500 to $3,700. So really on that top end, we're really into market rate rents at that point. So these are sort of the income ranges and rents that are associated with these different income levels. The city actually has 29 100% affordable projects currently completed and occupied. And I understand that there are three that are currently being planned and going through that process. This is an example of two Allegra apartments in Cypress Village and Park Darien in the Irvine Business Complex, or IBC. In terms of mixed-income housing projects, this is where you have majorities, market rate, and then there's a percentage affordable. Skyloft Apartments, also in the IBC, and Los Olivos Apartments in the spectrum area. So diving deeper into affordable housing need and beyond sort of looking at those income ranges, we looked at what it costs to own or rent in Irvine right now and compared that to or kind of backed into how much would a household have to make to afford market rate for ownership and for rent. So the median home price in Irvine is about $1.6 million. Backing into and reverse engineering the math, that translates into income of $350,000 a year. With rent, the average is about $3,000 a month. That's for older units, newer units, everything in between. And the rent needed for that would be $120,000 a year. Median income in Orange County, and this is a 2025 number. The 2026 numbers just came out a couple of days ago. But last year, the median income was 137,000. So, you know, market rate rent is, you know, the income needed for market rate rent is close to and somewhat less than the median. However, for ownership, it's very out of reach, looking at the delta between what you need to make and what the median is in the county. So we have these needs for affordable housing and this demand, so why isn't more built? And it really comes down to costs and financial feasibility. So you have, for 100% affordable projects, you have development costs that are not discounted. They're the same as market rate and sometimes can be more with additional regulations. labor, lumber, appliances, things like that, are not discounted for affordable housing projects. But you have discounted rents and prices to make these units affordable to people. So development costs, they're higher than the revenue you're bringing in for rents and sales prices. Land and construction costs are at all time highs right now. And even to get a loan from a lender as a developer, you have to have cash flow, net cash flow, showing that you can more than cover your loan or debt service payment by at least 15 to 25% more than what that loan or debt service payment is just to qualify for a loan. So it is very challenging. dealing with market prices but income reduced rents and prices on the market rate side and i included density bonus there because that is really a trend in market rate development sometimes or oftentimes it can be cheaper to pay in irvine's case the inclusionary housing in luffy than to build the unit So we might be seeing more fees than units. However, I understand there is a fee update coming to the Planning Commission and Council this summer to align those fees more with current construction and land costs that have gone up quite a bit. So this table is sort of to illustrate, this is based on an actual project, but I'm calling it a hypothetical example. This would be for a 100% affordable housing project, and all the pieces of this pie represent funding sources needed to cover the development costs. So the largest chunk is from low-income housing tax credits, the purple piece there. Those are a very large part of how affordable housing is financed, but they are competitive. So developers need to compete with other developers building in the same area, and so they're not as easy to get. And then you can see federal, state, and local funding accounts for about 15%, which is a pretty low percentage. And that's really due to constrained resources. There's just not a lot of money to subsidize or assist affordable housing. And then you see the loan amount. This is the loan the developer can get for the project. But hearkening back to that debt service requirement that I mentioned where you have to demonstrate net cash flow before you pay your loan at 115 to 125% of what your loan payment would be You're going to be capped out. It's like going and looking to get a mortgage, and you only qualify for a certain amount. This holds true also with lending for developers. So they can only loan out so much. And then you see here there's a 20% funding gap in red. So that amount could really represent about $20 million that isn't readily funded, that requires a lot of creativity in how to fill that gap. So that creativity does take time. And there are multiple funding applications that need to be put in at different times for 100% affordable projects. So they do take a while to come to the market and be available for people. So on a more positive note, there are affordable housing solutions. And so I wanted to go over, you know, how affordable housing really gets built. And I think Irvine has demonstrated a lot of success in many of these areas. First is inclusionary housing. That basically is something written in the zoning code that requires any market rate development that comes into the city to include 15% affordable units. And the city did opt in to do that. It's not a requirement. Not every city in the state has this requirement. You have to sort of opt in to do it. Irvine also allows for flexible menu options, like paying a fee in lieu of the units. donating land and converting market rate units to affordable. The benefit, I would say, of inclusionary is that it doesn't require a public subsidy. So these units can be, when they are built as part of a project, can be built fairly quickly. Then there's density bonus, and I will go into more detail on density bonus later in the presentation, but basically it's a state law that mandates all jurisdictions in California to adhere to that if a developer comes in with a market rate project and it's a sliding scale, but depending on the percentage of affordable units, that developer can be granted higher density than even the zoning code permits. And the bonus is the additional market rate units that come from that higher density. It is a faster delivery of units. The units have to be on site. The other important thing to note about density bonus is that it requires concessions and incentives. And these are anything that lower the cost to do the project to make it more financially feasible. Sometimes it's lower parking requirements, for example. Also, the benefit is there is no public subsidy, which is those dollars are scarce. But there's sort of pluses and minuses, I think, on the density bonus side. 100% affordable projects, all of the units are affordable. It is a complex funding stack with different funding applications that take time. These projects can take up to 10 years to be completed and are heavily reliant on public funding sources, which again are fairly scarce. And then finally, the conversion of market rate units to affordable. That's one of the menu options that Irvine allows. It provides sort of instant affordability. That unit is already built. It's just a question of recording an income restriction on the units. It is a cost effective option and it does not require public subsidy. To dive a little deeper into inclusionary housing, and to kind of reiterate, these affordable units, when they are built with the project, they are built with the project. So you have sort of mixed income, integrated project. They can be delivered faster because they're part of development that can be undertaken by a private developer without public subsidy. However, they produce fewer total units per project than 100%. Density bonus too, it's worth diving a little deeper here as well. And just to reiterate, state law does trump local ordinances and laws. So this is something every jurisdiction in California has to allow. And it really allows projects that come in with affordable units, that additional density and the additional market rate units help to subsidize and pay for the affordable without public subsidy. Typically these projects are at 10 or 15% affordable. And they are an important piece of the housing solution because of the lack of public subsidy needed and the speed to which they can be built, but there are challenges. They have less affordable units per project like inclusionary. They also, or density bonus does reduce local control because it's state mandated and it can put stresses on infrastructure and parking due to the concessions that are required. So density bonus is a hard thing to explain sometimes. So this slide illustrates sort of a hypothetical example. A developer comes in with a project, it's 100 units, and that's the maximum the zoning would allow in this hypothetical case. 15 of the 100 units are gonna be at very low income housing. So that developer receives a 50% density bonus. So they're allowed to build 150 units. And the bonus 50 units are all market rate. And there's profit associated with those units. They help subsidize and pay for those 15 very low income units. So the result is 135 market rate units and 15 affordable units. So a 90% market rate, 10% affordable sort of split there. So it's really trading sort of like density to adding some affordability. 100% affordable projects deliver, you know, every unit is affordable. However, they do require multiple funding sources, which take time. They do require higher subsidies, but they do also provide deep levels of affordability with the units that are built. They're typically at lower income exclusively, but do take some time to build. So just to highlight some additional comments on we have this intense need for affordable housing, yet units do not come as quickly as I think we would like. And there are constraints that I've discussed in terms of financial feasibility of affordable housing, but also just to kind of sum things up. Public funding is scarce from the state, the federal government, and local government really doesn't have a way to raise revenue for affordable housing outside of a special tax measure, which those are very few and far between. Not many jurisdictions have tried or have been successful in doing that. There was a tool that was eliminated 15 years ago, and I would argue that affordable housing has been very challenged since that time. There are a lot of state regulations, funding requirements, even the grants and all of these things are very complicated. And it's very difficult to meet all of the requirements. So that constrains things. There's a lot of financing approvals that need to take place, that takes time. And in the meantime, you've got construction costs increasing, which has really put a lot of pressure, not only on affordable housing, but market rate as well. And sometimes there's community opposition. I've noticed in general, not so much as affordable housing has become very important to more segments of the population, but that can happen in some jurisdictions. So all of these things can slow down production and increase costs. Also on a positive note, there's some really interesting trends in the industry, the first of which would be modular construction or prefabricated construction, where pieces of walls and buildings are manufactured offsite and then put together almost like Legos on the housing site. Converting market rate units to affordable units is something that we see more of in the industry statewide. There's also increased or now there is private sector interest in building and acquiring market rate projects and income restricting them. There's some financial and tax incentives that happen with that. So what I'm seeing is the private sector is stepping in because they see a very high demand and very low supply. And so the private sector's coming up with some solutions on their own. because it does take a long time to deliver 100% affordable projects. And then in terms of innovative funding and tools, we're seeing that private equity funds, capital funds that come in with cash, that significantly reduces because you're eliminating financing costs. So that reduces development costs. So there's a lot of interest there and it is emerging. And I'm also seeing where affordable housing developers, some of the larger ones, are actually issuing bonds and raising capital up to $100 million just so that they can move forward with projects with a lack of state and local resources. And then I'll conclude with this slide, which really sort of illustrates how there are solutions for affordable housing. No one is going to solve the problem. It's not either or. It's and. It's all of these things. It's new construction. It's preservation. It's converting market rate to affordable where that makes sense. It's 100% affordable projects, it's private sector interest and public funding, as well as policies such as inclusionary housing that the city has implemented very successfully. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. That was a wonderful presentation. Very informative. I'm going to open the public comments on this item. 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.

Excuse me, you need to come down to the microphone so we can hear you. Thank you.

Loud.

When you were talking about density, when you provide 15 units and let's say it's very low market income, let's say you move up to the next level and it's 15 units there. So then does the percentage of increase of units that they can add on, does it drop because the market rate of the rent? So is it on a sliding scale of the percentage of units that they're allowed?

Is it appropriate? Yes, please. So yes, typically 50% is as high as you can go, but their new state laws have allowed if you include some additional moderate income units, which is at a higher income range, that you can actually achieve up to 100% density bonus.

Okay, that's it.

Any other comments, questions?

Chair, it looks like that concludes public comments.

Okay. I'll open up the commission deliberations. If you want to use the request to speak button to speak. Looks like we'll start with Commissioner Lin.

Thank you so much for the presentation. I do have a question regarding the 100% affordable housing projects. So you mentioned that in Irvine, we have 29 of these. And I'm wondering if you happen to know the timeframe at which these were built. Has it been a steady, have we seen like a steady build up these projects or I'm just curious in terms of when the timeline for these 29 projects, if you happen to know them.

Yeah, no, that's a really good question. I would say that some of them date back about 25 years. But yes, there has been a steady stream. These projects tend to take longer because of the funding sources required in amassing that. and getting approvals for that. But yeah, I have actually seen, prior to joining the city, I was a consultant for 25 years, and I worked with jurisdictions all over the state. And so what I have seen here is definitely a steady stream of these 100% affordable projects due to mostly the inclusionary housing requirements, land donations, fees, ways to subsidize and help these projects.

Great. Just, just seeing our population, you know, over the years increase as much as it has, you know, even with a steady stream, it's not addressing the needs growing. Right. Um, so I do appreciate the efforts with the inclusion in your housing and such, and I, it's encouraging to hear that we will be reviewing our in lieu fees and that's, you know, a delicate thing where you don't want to increase it so much that it deters and, um, But I do appreciate the effort because I think that is one area that needed, it's long overdue. So, but thank you very much for answering my questions.

Okay, Commissioner Bhatia.

Thank you for the presentation. I was, I think a couple of years back for the Bolera community in Great Park, and that's where I reside. Related California and Kennedy Commission, they were handing out awards based on affordability. And it's a good track right there next to Luna Park. And I'm happy that the city is moving forward with a lot of these types of projects. Back to the 100% affordable housing scenario. It's a three-part question. Typically, these applications that come in on average, how many applications do come in for a project of that size, which is 100% affordable? And at what timeframe in the process during the build out? Do you start accepting those applications? And thirdly, is there a restriction on if an applicant is supposed to work in the city of Irvine to provide benefits? Are there any sort of conditions for you know, that type of project?

Yeah, I will answer that. So each project in the city has to, they have to submit an affordable housing plan and then they submit an affordable housing marketing plan that lays out the details of when applications will be, when it will be advertised that there are units available and how and when applications will be reviewed. And so it would depend on the affordable housing marketing plan. In my experience that my small time at the city so far, what I've seen is that that lease up process on a 100% affordable project seems to start maybe two to three months before their certificate of occupancy is issued. Some of them have more requirements if they have special needs populations that they serve. There are certain processes they have to go through to do that. And then in terms of the local preference policy that you mentioned, living or working in the city of Irvine, the preference policy cannot be required for low-income housing tax credit projects that receive those tax credits, that 40% chunk in the pie chart. which is a large source of funding because the state and federal requirements, it originates from federal HUD money, and then it comes to the state who then allocates out. Those supersede local laws. However, any developer of the 100% affordable can opt in to adhere to the local preference policy. And so while we can't require it, some developers like Cartwright Family Apartments, for example, that I think they're opening this month, they did opt in to do that for their project.

Okay. No, thank you. Thank you for that. Seems like before the occupancy, two to three months, that they would probably get bombarded with a lot of applicants for something that's 100% affordable. But no further questions at this point. Thank you.

Commissioner Dalguzak.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, staff, for a great presentation. I know HOMA 4 Ability is always in the news, whether it's here locally, the state, and national level. I had a question about slide 20 about trends that you presented on the innovations that are expanding to opportunities here. Is there any modular fabricated construction like proposals that the city has received that you could foresee in the pipeline in the next year or two?

Not on a scale that would be used for an affordable housing project.

So it's more like, I think it's...

It would be for like an excess, small accessory structure, something like that.

Like an ADU or something?

Yes.

Okay, but nothing like widespread.

Correct.

And then my last question is, private equity that wants to build and acquire affordable projects, what kind of projects do you see coming in the next year or two? Has there been some discussions?

Not to date. This is pretty new in the industry. Just in the last couple of years, there's been this kind of investor interest. I think what they're trying to work out is there are only so many apartment projects you can acquire. And so I think what they're trying to focus on is building new. And that is taking some time because they need to build sort of efficiently and kind of control costs. I think that's been really challenging the past few years. The only private equity... I only know of one private equity firm, and they're actually headquartered here in Irvine, that has launched a modular construction arm. But they're doing it on the East Coast to start, I think because maybe land values are maybe a little bit more feasible, perhaps, than coastal Southern California. But I am very hopeful that... that we will see especially since this company is headquartered in irvine that we would see um this type of project maybe being looked at here yeah thank you for providing that um future hopefully stakeholder too that's all i have thanks commissioner mansfield

Thank you, and thank you for your presentation. It was very fascinating. A concern and more general interest is I see we have four different pathways here to get some more housing, but a question I have or something I'd like to see is maybe a deeper cost-benefit analysis against each of the four different types of housing because What I'm seeing is while we have very different routes to get here, I don't want us to pick one specifically and potentially lock out developers, but I also want to make sure that we're getting our best ROI for our taxpayers, as well as our developers, as well as our residents. So I guess to cut to it, I'd really like a deeper cost benefit analysis. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the great presentation. I don't have any questions. I've gone through this before a number of times, and I think that this is very inclusive of where we are, the overview. I'd like to thank staff for being able to bring on a new housing manager. uh and it's a great addition to you know the city Community Development group so uh you know the questions I've had have been answered uh and I think uh I'm just real happy that uh you gave us an overview of where we are today and what the challenges, what the constraints are for the affordability issues. And thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, thank you. I just have a couple of questions. Most of the affordable we see, maybe all of it that we've seen while I've been here has been for rent. Can you talk about the challenges of building for sale affordable compared to for rent?

Yeah, yes, I can. There aren't funding sources for affordable for sale yet or to date. There was something called redevelopment that was in effect where you could keep more money local to the jurisdiction. And there was a requirement that you spent a certain percentage of it on affordable housing. That's when a lot of the ownership projects had been done statewide. So the lack of funding, there are no tax credits for ownership. There are for rental, but not for ownership. I think that's been the biggest constraint, even though there's a big need there. The other constraint that I've seen just in my experience is that after the Great Recession and they tightened up lending requirements with Dodd-Frank at the federal level, it became harder to qualify for a mortgage. And so, you know, things like debt to income ratios and things like that, it can be very challenging for people at particularly very low income to have a down payment and to qualify for a loan. So there are some aspects of this that are outside the city's control because it's the lending community that makes these decisions. But I think the access to mortgages has been, and down payment assistance has been challenging in general. However, we did, I just wanted to share that there is a certain grant that the city has called the Permanent Housing Local Allocation or PLHA. We just amended that at council to set aside over a million dollars for a workforce down payment assistance program for ownership. So it wouldn't be building new units, it would be helping first time home buyers get into their first home because down payment can be a barrier. But that's an example of something I think the city's doing to assist with home ownership. at people who are, you know, 350,000 is a lot, you know, to make to afford something. So I would just round it out to say that I think that the lack of public funding, the tightening of lending requirements, and, you know, sort of the barrier of down payment are the reasons why I believe we don't see more homeownership projects.

Okay, thank you. My other question is, What is the best way to use our in-lieu fees that would result in the most affordable housing?

Yeah, I mean, I'm aware of... I worked at the city as a consultant for a really long time before coming here, so I have some background on the way the city has spent the money. And I think the city's spending it really well. I wouldn't... No improvements that I can think of. I mean, that money is typically used to provide a loan to an affordable project. And so... It does take some time to amass enough to make a meaningful sort of loan, but also wanted to point out that there are other funding mechanisms. This PLHA grant, about half of it is for rental. There's $2.6 million left in that grant over the next few years that we can use to subsidize, and we also have quite a bit of federal HUD money as well. So I think my job here as housing manager is to make sure that we leverage the grant money to the best of our ability and we get the most units out of it. And I think that staff has done an excellent job of, prior to my arrival, of negotiating with developers to advocate for units being built, even though there are other menu options available in the inclusionary. So one of the reasons I came to work here was because I admired the way the city's pro-housing sort of stance is. And the job that staff has done, I think we're at 5,700 units, affordable units in the city. When I worked on the housing element as a consultant, it was 4,500. And that was in 2022. So there's been quite an increase that you don't really see in other jurisdictions.

And the staff has also negotiated for higher percentages too, which is, you know, great. Commissioner Lynn?

Thank you, Chair. You know, while we're building all these affordable units, you know, when we hear about the terms of affordability and a lot of them, I'm just wondering overall per year approximately, how many units do we lose because the term was either 30 years or 50 years? Because that's a concern too, because while we have been creating affordable units in our housing stock, we're losing some as well, the reality is. And so I'm wondering... How many do we lose on average or approximately? Is there like a consistent?

I can offer at least an initial answer to this. Actually, with regard to rental, it isn't a big number at all because the city has negotiated with property owners, Irvine Company is a large property owner in the city, and there have been many successful agreements to extend affordability covenants for 55 years when you were getting close to expiration. So that has actually been very beneficial. The one that I am aware of are the single family homes that were built back in the days when there were mortgage assistance programs and things like that. And after a 30 year time period, they do expire. it's harder to preserve those the only method of doing that is to purchase the home and that's a difficult thing to do if the buyer is unwilling to sell because the value goes up so much when the affordability covenant expires so i think with what's within the city's control there have been many units i think close to 100 units where the affordability was extended And that's something that staff negotiated, you know, as part of inclusionary requirements on new projects. But preservation's key because building's very expensive. So preserving a unit makes a lot of sense financially.

And generally speaking, then it seems like the city has been successful in negotiating extending these terms, and we have been able to hold on to most of our affordable housing stock. Okay, that's great. Thank you so much.

Looks like everyone's asked other questions. I guess we'll close this and move on to public comments for non agendized items. Thank you very much for your answers and presentation. Do we have any public comments for 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, we do not have any public comments.

Thank you. Director Frady, do we have any introductions today?

None tonight, Chair.

Okay. Do we have any staff reports?

None tonight.

Okay. Do my fellow commissioners have any announcements, committee reports? No? Okay. How about additions and deletions, Director Frady?

No additions or deletions.

All right. So we'll move on to the consent calendar. All the items listed will be impacted by one vote. There'll be no discussion of these items unless members of the planning commission request specific items to be removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion. So I'd like to start by opening public comments on the item. Do we have any comments on the consent calendar?

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.

Okay. Then I'll move on to asking my fellow commissioners if they have any questions, comments on the consent calendar.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the minutes of the regular planning commission meeting held May 21st, 2026. I'll second.

Oh, great. Can we please set up a vote?

Chair Stark, the motion has passed unanimously with those present.

Thank you. All right, so we're gonna move on to item number three, and I'm going to open the public hearing. Director Frady, could you please introduce the item?

Thank you. This item is conditional use permit for a new Class 6 wireless communication facility mounted on a utility tower located north of Interstate 405 and east of Harvard Avenue in Planning Area 14, West Park. Presenting tonight is Senior Planner Sherman Jones, joined by Planning Manager Alyssa Matthews.

Good evening Chair, Chairman Stark and members of the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to install a class six wireless facility on the existing Southern California Edison Tower. The project site is located within an SCE transmission corridor in Plenary 14, West Park on the Northern side of the 405 and the East side of Harvard Avenue. The general plan designation is Recreation. The zoning is 1.5 recreation. Surrounding land uses include residential to the north, I-405 to the south, and there's also a apartment complex on the west side of Harvard Avenue. The existing facility is located within the parking lot of Irvine Lane's bowling alley on the south side of the 405 and the west side of Harvard Avenue. The applicant is proposing to install nine panel antennas on an existing SCE lattice tower with associated equipment house and a new equipment enclosure. The panel antennas will be mounted at 55 feet above ground level. Equipment includes three cabinets, a GPS antenna, fiber box, surge suppressor, and cable bridge. There are no generators proposed with this project. This is a photo simulation of the proposed project. And we're looking southeast from Harvard Avenue. And you can see the proposed antennas as well as the ground equipment. And this is a second photo simulation that's northwest of the 405. The applicant evaluated alternative sites within the general facility that coincided with project objectives. However, the applicant indicated that the SE tower was the only identified structure that would provide a minimum elevation required for effective propagation. Nearby structures do not offer sufficient antenna height to satisfy the RF objectives. Additionally, no other buildings or utility structures within the search ring can support the required antenna elevation. The wireless ordinance also requires applicants to assess the feasibility of alternative configurations to lower the antennas classification or visual impact. This is a proposed class six. However, the applicant looked at lower antenna classifications, but they did not meet the AT&T coverage requirements. This project is exempt from CEQA under section 15301, the existing SCE tower. Hearing notices were mailed and posted per city requirements. Staff did receive two emails earlier today, and they were related to how the facility would be camouflaged, and also with maintenance on the facility if the project were to be approved. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 26-4077, That concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. If the applicant is here and they'd like to make any comments, they can step up to the mic. You're okay? Okay. Then I will open public comments on this item.

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. Here, we'll start with Amy Alessi here in the chamber.

Thank you. Good evening, chair and members of the commission. My name is Amy Alessi, and I was tasked by the board of West Parkless Palmas with finding out more information about the project and how it would impact aesthetically. I'll start with what matters most. We are not opposed to the project. We recognize the need for improved coverage. They appreciate that AT&T chose to co-locate on an existing tower rather than build a new one. I'm here to respectfully ask that approval include a focus set of visual mitigation conditions consistent with the design principles in Irvine zoning ordinance. First, color and finish that all nine panels, mounts, brackets, and visible hardware be painted in a matte non-reflective finish color match to the existing SCE tower. Second, an RF transparent concealment shroud on the alpha sector, just the corner that faces the residential community. That would help to lower the visual impact. And third, cable management, that all coaxial feed lines be routed in color-matched conduit tight to the tower with no exposed cable bundles. And that is the end of our request.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Chair, this concludes public comments for this item.

Thank you. Then I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the commission deliberations. We'll start with Commissioner Mansfield.

Hello there. Good evening again. It's great to see you. Thank you for your public comment. It's much appreciated to hear feedback from the community. I guess I have a question for the applicant. Is this color, is this like a matte gray? If I could ask the applicant a question.

Hello, testing. Hi. Yeah, the color scheme doesn't seem unreasonable. We can request that AT&T match color of the tower. Okay, so you said you can get the color changed? I believe so, yeah.

Okay, and then just kind of the pictures are obviously from a bit of a distance away. Are the cables closed, fixed in, tied down? They typically are.

That's usually the standard that we can write it in there so that we can make sure that construction follows that condition.

Fantastic. That's all my questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Bathia?

Thank you, staff, for the report. I wanted to know, given the proximity with it being near the 405 freeway, is it that this wireless facility is addressing any commuters or, you know, emergency responders, or it just serves the residents nearby? Is that what it's for?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner. So as you can see that this is actually going to be replacing an existing facility that's in the Irvine Lanes bowling alley. So what AT&T has indicated to staff is that in order to eliminate the chances of losing coverage, they're proposing to relocate to the SCE tower. And so it would cover those same areas, including the 405 and the surrounding residential areas.

I see. Okay. And given that we have one community member here, Amy, from the Los Palmas condominium there, those three requests from there, I would like to ask the applicant, I think you already answered one of those, was the MATE with the RF concealment and the cable management, would you be receptive to all of those per the resident?

I don't see a problem with it. That's something that obviously we've done before with other sites as well.

Okay. It's pretty standard then. Okay. No further questions. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Commissioner Batia. I would also like to point out the condition number 3.29 in your resolution includes those camouflaging measures. So it's already included in your resolution.

It's included. Okay. I just want to, all right. It's baked in there. So we're good.

Commissioner Lin.

I have no further questions. I'd like to move to approve the resolution.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Commissioner Pearson. I'll second. Thank you, Chairman, for the presentation. I would like to ask the applicant, in the staff report, it says that included in the equipment enclosure is a power plant. And I'd like to understand what that power plant is.

Hello. The power plant would be the battery pack that is used to maintain power and continuity when the site goes down before so the AT&T can bring a generator out to keep the site up if there is.

Okay, so there's no generator inside the plant in case of a down system and the battery pack is no longer usable or expands its energy you've got the connection to re-energize the battery pack well yeah they would plug it in in an event of an emergency okay so that's used for emergency situations very good thank you now i've gone through the uh conditions and i think that uh the issue of camouflage is uh well-identified, the city's protected us in a lot of the areas in which the letters that we've received, I believe are mitigated. So that's, I'm done, thanks.

Okay, I think we have a motion. I think we have a second. Commissioner Mansfield, I don't think I see any other comments. Could we set up the vote, please?

Chair, the motion has passed unanimously.

Okay, thank you. So let's move on to item number four. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and ask Director Frady to introduce the item.

Thank you. Item four is conditional use permit for a new class one wireless communication facility sealed within an architectural tower element of a recreation building located at 800 Cardiff in Planning Area 38, West Park 2. Same staff presenting, Senior Planner Sherman-Jones joined by Planning Manager, Alyssa Matthews.

And good evening again, Chairman Stark and members of the Planning Commission. As Director Frady indicated, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to install a class one wireless facility in a reconstructed architectural tower. The project site is located at the Santa Rosa Apartments Recreation Building in Planning Area 38. This is West Park 2, generally at the southwest corner of Culver Drive and Warner Avenue. The general plan designation is a medium high density residential. zoning is 2.4 medium high density residential and the site is surrounded by the apartment community on all sides this is the southwest elevation of the sonar santa rosa apartment recreation building and you can see on the exhibit that where the wireless facility antennas will be located along with the radios and ray caps and all equipment will be located with inside the tower This is a photo simulation of the reconstructed tower, and this is looking northeasterly towards the recreation building. You'll again see the proposed antennas mounted within the proposed tower extension. This is a second photo simulation looking easily at the tower from the main entry area. The applicant explored alternative locations and the general vicinity that coincided with its coverage objectives. Most of these areas are developed with single-family detached homes. Exceptions include private neighborhood parks, a public park, and a public school. One of the private parks is the Santa Ynez Park, which is approximately 540 feet south of the project site. However, the Homeowners Association was not interested in leasing to the site. A second private park across Culver, this is the Wood Pine Park, and that homeowner association was also not interested in leasing to the applicant. Further north across Warner Avenue is Plaza Vista School and Plaza Park. Plaza Vista School is a IUSD school, and the school district was not interested in the facility. And the Plaza Park is a public park that's owned by the city of Irvine. However, there was no vertical elements in that park that would accommodate the proposed wireless facility. In addition to exploring alternative locations, the wireless ordinance also requires applicants to assess the feasibility of alternative configurations to lower the antennas classification. And given that this is a class one, there are no lower antenna classifications. This project is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15303. It's the small structure exemption. Hearing notices were mailed and posted per city requirements. And staff has received four emails regarding the proposed project. In summary, the neighbors were opposed to the project, and they mentioned the visual impacts of the proposed project, perceived health risks, and also possible future expansions of the facility. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 26-4078. And that concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. And I also want to remind the, or inform the Planning Commission that there was an updated RF study provided to the applicant. And that concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Would the applicant like to make any comments?

Good evening, Chair Stark, members of the commission. First of all, thank you, Sherman, for the staff report. And congratulations to I think all three of you have been promoted since last time I was here in chambers. So good to see everybody who's moving on up in the world. Thank you for your time tonight. Our project is... A simple one, although construction will be complex, but I'm always happy to bring projects forward that once we're done, they're literally going to be invisible. You will not know that we're there. A lot of times, like AT&T just did, we're stuck with a lattice tower, and that's the best thing we can possibly get. In this scenario, working with the Irvine Company, we've come up with a location and a design that we believe is the highest and best use of an existing vertical structure. understand that there are some concerns and I'm sure some of you commissioners will have questions for me. Um, but as you all know, we have strict FCC standards that we must abide by. We have third party engineering firms that do reviews on the projects, the project design, the equipment being used, and we meet all of those standards. And, um, We've had a chance to review the staff report and of course the conditions of approval and we're happy to accept them as they're currently written or have discussions about modifying them if you see fit. Other than that, I'll keep it simple and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have and thank you for your time. Thank you.

So now we'll open public comments and we'll see if there are any public comments on this item.

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, thank you. We'll close the public hearing then and open it up to the commissioners. So we have Commissioner Bhatia ready to go.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Sherman, for the presentation. I must say this is probably one of the most aesthetically pleasing antennas that I wouldn't know existed in a plaza like that. So that being said, I had a question about like any future upgrades for this antenna. Would it still be concealed within the tower itself or would that be, you know, how can we make sure that there's safeguards for that? regarding any future upgrades for the antenna. That was my question.

Staff is not aware of any potential upgrades. Again, if this project were to be approved, we would evaluate it in the same manner that we've evaluated this project. And I don't want to speak for the applicant, but I believe that if you're speaking about co-location, that would be something that the applicant would have to discuss with the property owner.

Okay. That's all the question I had. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Pearson.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. One basic question is to staff, is this just for the conditional use permit or are we looking at the architectural changes to the facility?

The project is limited to the conditional use permit for the wireless facility.

Okay. No emergency generator. plug-ins just in case you need to keep it active. My only concern is the safety element of anybody being in that tower. Looking at the revised report where it's 7,895% above the FCC general population limit, I know that there's been a request and I didn't back check the conditions for signage and for safety measures and the coordination with Verizon for anybody that may go into the tower. But I wanna make sure that at that level of RF we don't have anybody that shouldn't be there and that Verizon would be, you know, suspending operation if somebody from a maintenance aspect of the building would get close to it. And I'm not sure if that's, you know, I just, I need an affirmation that that is contained in the conditions.

Thank you. Commissioner, so it's my understanding that there's different levels of exposure. At the ground level, there is no impact to the general population. For the occupational portion, for the employees of Verizon, they have to have a certain amount of training in order to get closer to the antennas. And depending on what they're doing with the antennas, it would either be shut down, the facilities, or it would be reduced in power to make sure there's no impact to the employees of Verizon. And then with regards to employees of the apartment complex, again, it's staff's understanding that Verizon would be working with the Irvine company to make sure that there is signage in place to make sure that employees that are not affiliated with Verizon do not go to the facility.

Okay, my concern is if you had a painter go on the outside of the building while the facility is still in operation, you're liable to fry him.

There's also a condition of approval requiring signage be placed on the site so that everybody in the vicinity of this particular facility is aware of the facility being there and ensures compliance with all FCC regulations.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Commissioner Delacruzak.

Thank you, Chair. I just had a couple of questions about... project in the city is there anything similar to this like in other residential developments like where you have it located in a like in this case it's a apartment complex yes so on the screen

If you're looking at Calypso on the left side of the screen, that's right on the corner of Jamboree and Alton. And this is a facility that's right above the parking structure. And this particular facility was approved by the Planning Commission in 2011. And it's approximately 68 feet from the closest residential use. And then on the right side of the screen, that's the Total Rock Canyon apartment homes in Planning Area 21. And that facility, I know it's kind of hard to see in that group, but there is a pole there. It's approximately 96 feet from the residential use.

Well, thank you for those examples. That's very helpful. And I see it blends in really well, because I've seen these antennas, like fake palm trees or on water towers. And it seems that it's a good aesthetic and glad to see it's like the antennas are hidden in the tower. So that's all I have. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Mansfield. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a quick question for the applicant. What is traffic going to look like in the area during installation? Will there be an impact at all or will it just be like a truck? What is that going to look like for the residents?

We will have to have an organized construction plan, as you can imagine. You know, the Irvine Company doesn't... let us make messes anywhere. So it'll be simple scaffolding surrounding the tower. It'll be staged so the demolition happens and is clean and safe. And then when we're staging materials, my guess is we'll probably have a small lay down area near the rental office, probably towards the front. But those are details that we still have to get worked out. We're not that far down the road yet, but we believe that we'll be safe and we'll be a good neighbor. And obviously we're going to follow the rules of the city of Irvine in terms of hours of construction and noise generation and those types of things.

Fantastic. Thank you so much. And just, yeah, also to piggyback off of everybody else, really great aesthetic here. I like that it's hidden. I think the residents will appreciate that as well. I hope so.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Is page five and page seven the same? The 1.1 antennas level and 2.1 antennas level? No, five and seven.

And Chair Stark, just to confirm that we're speaking about the RF study?

I'm sorry, yes. Thank you. On pages five and then pages seven, or page seven.

I'm going to defer to the applicant.

Chair, I'm noting that the title at the top defines the slide is all transmitters for page five and or seven is Verizon transmitters.

So since it was only one set of transmitters, it would be the same. Thank you. I looked at this so long I found Waldo, I think. Um, the next question I have is on the all levels. So this is just the pitch roof that the RF is hitting. Would that not affect the apartments below the pitched roof or would it affect it to a lesser degree? Um, this page six on the RF study. We'll tag team on these.

You're now looking, I'm sorry, at page six. Yeah. Page six. Um, Yeah, so what we're noting on page six is these are areas that are in the green. So they're at or below 100% of the safe general population exposure levels. And these are at the roof level or above. Okay. So to be in this level of exposure, you would actually have to be standing on the roof.

On the outside.

On the outside.

Yeah.

Which obviously we're not encouraging people to stand on the roof. um and i can refer you to one of the things that we added in our updated report was page nine which gives you an elevation view of the emissions pattern. And for the purposes of this study, the engineer used the strongest antennas with the highest power. And so this diagram shows you what the propagation pattern is 35 feet above the ground and in a sort of in a three-dimensional side view, kind of shows you it reaches out about 60 feet, 66 feet, excuse me, which will get you to the rooftops of some of the adjacent buildings. But again, it dissipates as you get lower in elevation. And so this is just meant to highlight and reinforce like the understanding of the propagation pattern from the antennas within the tower.

It is a very helpful graphic. So then I would think building material like roofing would break that up further. So if you're inside the building, even within the roof section, it's going to be much less than what it would be on the outside of the roof.

Yeah, absolutely. I'm sure you've seen projects where we talk about concealing our antennas within special FRP materials. And those are things that are RF friendly for our purposes. And our signal transmits through them very easily. Traditional building materials such as concrete or like in this case, we've got clay.

know spanish tile we're not it's not going to be great uh through the transmission which of course then is also lowering your emission or your power levels okay and then a couple of comments were worried about rf on the ground because it's a community center but judging from the graphs you've provided there really isn't any exposure on the ground level

Yeah, it's well inside the limits for general population exposures under the FCC rules. And as you can imagine, our antennas are oriented such that we're sending the signal out. You know, if we were to lay them on their face, obviously they would have a much different propagation pattern. But we're trying to cover, you know, roughly a quarter mile, let's say. So we want to get as high as we can within reason and then have our intent is oriented in such a way that it maximizes the effectiveness of the site. All right, thank you.

That was very helpful to help me understand. Commissioner Mansfield.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quick, I'd like to request the city attorney to chime in on, to clarify for the record what we as a commission are allowed to and not allowed to consider with regard to vote on a project like this, specifically around the FCC standards.

Yeah, I think I've given this speech a couple of times before. But yeah, just a gentle reminder that we can't, we really don't have a say in what the radio frequency emissions are on the site or what they should be. That's all regulated by the federal government. So really what we're limited to doing is making sure the project complies with the federal standards, which we've done here with the standard condition of approval. I think it's 6.25, I think I have in my notes. And then we can test to make sure that they are complying with that condition and with those regulations. But otherwise, we can't set new standards. We can't deny a project because we don't like the standard, even though they're complying with the standard. So really, we've done what we can do here with respect to RF emissions.

Thank you very much for that.

Looks like we're all done with comments. Oh, we have a motion made by Commissioner Pearson, second by Commissioner Lin. Can we set up the vote please?

Chair Stark, the motion has passed unanimously.

Wonderful, thank you. So we're gonna adjourn and I'll tell everyone that the next planning commission meeting will be held Thursday, June 18th, 2026 at 5.30 PM in the city council chamber. It is now 641, and I'm going to declare the June 4th, 2026 meeting adjourned.