Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

All right. It is now 528. I'm going to call the Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, June 18, 2026 to order. Can you please call the roll?

Commissioner Pearson.

Present.

Commissioner Mansfield.

Present.

Commissioner Grossman.

Here.

Commissioner De La Cusack.

Here.

Commissioner Bhatia is absent this evening, along with Vice Chair Lin. Chair Stark.

Here. Thank you.

We have a quorum.

All right. Now we'll go to the Pledge of Allegiance, and Commissioner Mansfield will lead us in that. So if everyone could please rise and recite with us. Thank you.

Everybody, please put your right hand over your heart. Ready, begin. I pledge 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.

So now's the time we'll open the meeting for public comments on non-agendized items. Do we have any non-agendized 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 non-agendized items.

OK, thank you. Director Frady, do you have any introductions?

No introductions tonight.

How about staff reports?

Just one brief congratulations to Commissioner Pearson, who was inducted into the City of Irvine Wall of Recognition. I just want to say congratulations, that's awesome. Congratulations, that's great.

Do my fellow commissioners have any announcements or reports? Director Frady, do we have any additions or deletions?

None tonight, Chair.

Okay. Then I will introduce the consent calendar. Everything listed will be enacted by one vote. No discussion of these topics unless members pull the item. Are there any public 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 on this item.

Thank you. I see that Commissioner Pearson has made a motion to approve. Would anyone like to make comments or second before we vote? I'll second.

Do my fellow commissioners have any comments or we want to vote? Just for the record, I have had a chance to review the meeting and I will be able to vote on the consent calendar. Thank you, Commissioner Grossman. Could you please step up for the vote?

Chair, the motion has passed.

Thank you. We'll move on to item two and I'll open the public hearing. Director Frady, could you please introduce the item?

Thank you. Item two is a master plan for a new single-family residence and attached accessory dwelling unit with a variance for a reduced front yard building setback at 16972 Culver Drive in Planning Area 15, Woodbridge. Tonight's staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue this item to a date uncertain.

Okay. Thank you. Then I guess I'll skip down to open public comments on this item. Taya, do we have 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, we have three present in the chamber, and so far, one on Zoom. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes.

OK, thanks, Tara.

For the three present in chamber, please come down and line up. We'll start with William Soros, Jerry Rose, Craig Johnson.

As a board member, we do not oppose the applicant's request to continue his application. I do want to let the Planning Commission know we are meeting with him next week. There has been negotiations going on. I cannot make any guarantees or any promises as to whether we were able to reach a compromise. But I think right now, both sides are working in good faith. And either we're going to reach something, or we'll be back before you in about 60 days. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, commissioners. It's with much regret, anguish, and frustration that I stand before you here this evening. I ask at this time that everyone against this proposed bill please stand and be counted. This is a small representation of our neighborhood and those opposed to this bill continuing. The residents of Phase 3 cottage homes in Woodbridge have been forced to gather and fight against a proposed dwelling by a man that has tried to skirt around city ordinances and a planning commission that has seemingly turned a blind eye to these building ordinances and variances. You have heard and read the Cottage Homes HOA and the Woodbridge Village Association HOA arguments against this project. in the point-by-point breakdown of Craig Johnson's well-researched legal reasoning for denying moving forward with Scott Piotr's proposed use of the parcel in question. In Piotr's April presentation here in these chambers, he twisted the language of the two HOAs' answers to his original ask to get started. He neglected to mention he had already broke HOA rules with his camouflage covering of the work he has been doing. Maybe that's because he didn't really, in good faith, try hard enough to join either association. On a legal standpoint, permission to remove the existing retaining wall has not been granted. The applicant's plans assume the removal of the existing retaining wall along the easterly property line. This wall was built by the original cottage's developer, sits on association property, and is owned by the association. The applicant's property has an easement to maintain this wall, but does not mean remove. Removal of this wall will require approval by the association. The master plan should be denied until the applicant can demonstrate consent from the association to remove this wall. You as a commission seem very willing to just lay down and stay out of his way at the meeting here in April. You ignored the fact that he admitted he has yet to secure the funding for this project. This is all very unsettling. What is already an eyesore to the community may never get finished like his project in Newport Beach. It is a united front that we come here tonight to raise our fully researched legal objections to this bill. We are asking that the Planning Commission do its due diligence and required research to understand legally and in good faith why this proposal tears down the walls of what a master-planned community is and stands for, not to mention the ordinances and rules this bill does not comply with. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, members. I'm Craig Johnson, and I've been working on this project since we first found out about it in March. And I do want to say before I get into what I want to talk about is that the staff and the planning commissioners that I've been very impressed with the engagement, the communication. It's gone very, very well, and I appreciate all your efforts. And I understand there's a request to continue this item, but there are still a couple of items I want to talk about. First of all, the variance. The required setback is 10 feet, but the applicant wants to reduce it to six inches, which is a 95% reduction in the requirement. The staff report states that the applicant must demonstrate that the variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. But in this case, that is not true. He wants to build a 2,700 square foot home and ADU. There are no cottage home properties that have 2,700 square feet of living space. If the applicant were proposing a smaller house in line with other cottage homes, it would fit on the lot without the variance. So by denying the variance, the applicant is not being denied privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. And the variance would also set a precedent that would be decided by others to increase the size of their homes. If this is approved, the city could not then deny future setback variance requests because that would indeed deprive those properties of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the community, namely his. Secondly, it was already kind of mentioned, the retaining wall issue. And that speaks directly to the master plan. The master plan that he currently shows shows the retaining wall being moved. But it's not his retaining wall to move. He needs approval from the association. So until he can demonstrate that approval, I think the master plan should also be denied. Now, I'm a civil engineer. I specialize in land development. I am not opposed to building new homes. But the city of Irvine is the gold standard of thoughtful, well-planned development. This development is not that. I know we'll have a chance to talk about that in the future. But at this time, I would also like to ask city staff to take a closer look at these two items that I've discussed here. Is the variance truly justified? And does the applicant need permission to remove the association's wall? And I would be happy to meet with them. If they have any questions or want to discuss that, I want to discuss it with them as well. So as I said earlier, I appreciate all the effort you put into the city. I know it's a volunteer position. You guys do a great job. I've been very impressed. So I thank you for your time and for your service to your city.

Next, we will move to our Zoom speaker, Feldscott Lee. Go ahead.

Good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is Marcella Muslick of Feldscott Lee and NICDR. And we serve as general counsel for the Woodbridge Cottages Homeowners Association. We are requesting that this matter be continued. We do continue to oppose this project. There are a lot of homeowner concerns. Adjacent properties will be negatively impacted if this project is permitted to move forward. We do still have things that we need to overcome. There are easements that are in contention. The perimeter wall status is in dispute. There are sections of this project just are not being presented in a way that would be cohesive to the community. And so therefore the community continues to oppose it, but they are sitting down with Mr. Piotr and trying to work these issues out. While the community still opposes it, they are trying to work out a solution. So on behalf of Cottages, I'm requesting that this be continued, if not denied entirely. Thank you.

Chair, this concludes our public comments for this item.

All right, thank you. Then I will close the public hearing since we're just going to—

How about online?

I'm sorry?

Online comments? This is Scott Fyodor. I'm the applicant. I'd like to have a public presentation as well.

Sure. Can we set the timer for three minutes for Scott?

Thank you, Commission. Thank you so much for enduring through all of this. We've made the presentation originally in March. It's been continued three times. It's now three months later. I have not had very much communication with the association. I'm pleased to say that this week prior to this hearing, I've had a lot of communication back and forth with them. And as the board member had indicated earlier, that I've got a meeting set up next week for them, which is progress. I won't get into the details of walls and other things because that can happen at a later date if necessary. Obviously, I'm in disagreement with some of those comments. But the association seems to think that in the next 60 days that we can resolve our issues. Knowing that you can't continue to a date specific any longer. I would continue to request that you continue to a date uncertain and We'll bring back for the public after public noticing bring it back before the Commission Okay, thank you, that's it short and sweet.

Thank you. I appreciate it So I need no more public comments or any okay? all right, so I will close the public hearing and I Do any of the commissioners want to make comments or questions, or do we just want to move to continuous to a date uncertain?

Well, I will support the continuance. I do want to thank all of the residents for their continued interest and their continued attention to the matter. Your voices are being heard, and I appreciate the continued focus on it. Hopefully this will be resolved amicably between the parties, and that would be the best solution for the city of Irvine and for the residents and for Mr. Piotr. But I wanted to acknowledge and thank you for being engaged.

Thank you, Commissioner Grossman. I made a motion. Can I have a second for a continuance? Second. Thank you. Please set up the vote, Taya. Thank you.

Chair, the motion to continue this item to a date uncertain has passed.

OK, thank you. We have another item, item number five, that also asks for a continuance. At this point, we could move that up to get that off our agenda. Can we do that?

OK.

I'll open the public hearing for item five. And Director Frady, can you please introduce the item?

Thank you. Item 5 is a conditional use permit and park plan for the Fairchild Residential Project located at 1960 and 1700 Fairchild Road in Planning Area 36, Irvine Business Complex. At this time, staff is recommending a continuance of this item to the Planning Commission public hearing of July 16th. The applicant has requested this continuance and staff is supportive.

Okay, thank you. I guess we don't need a presentation from the applicant, so do we have 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.

Okay, thank you. So since we're continuing this, I'll leave it open, right? Okay, open commission deliberations. I see a motion made by Commissioner Pearson, seconded by Commissioner Mansfield. Looks like no comments, so could we please set up the vote?

Chair Stark, the motion to continue this item to July 16th has passed.

Wonderful, thank you. So now we will go back to item number three. I'll open the public hearing and ask Director Frady to please introduce the item.

Thank you. Item three is conditional use permit for six new class six wireless communication facilities. parking lot light pole mounted within the Woodbury Town Center at 6200 to 6436 Irvine Boulevard in Planning Area 9, Woodbury. Presenting tonight is Senior Planner Sherman Jones, joined by Principal Planner Chris Chung.

Good evening, Chair Stark and members of the Planning Commission. As Director Frady indicated, this is an application for a conditioner use permit to install six Class 6 wireless facilities at the Woodbury Town Center. The project site is located within the Woodbury Town Center parking lot in Plenary Area 9 that's at the southwest corner of Irvine Boulevard and Sand Canyon Avenue. The general plan designation is multi-use. The zoning is 3.1E multi-use and surrounding land uses include apartments to the north and east, condominiums to the south, and apartments and condos to the west. The proposed project includes the removal and replacement of six 25-foot tall light poles with six new 30-foot tall light poles with canister antennas on the top of each light pole. Each facility will include power supply units at the base of the light pole, remote radio units and surge protectors and each light pole will route directly underground via fiber cables to an existing central utility building with data racks electrical panel and electrical submeters and just for the planning commissioner's information there are no generators proposed for this project for the six facilities and this is a targeted geographic area as the applicant has indicated Because of the moderate coverage, this new facility will, in the applicant's opinion, strengthen coverage and provide additional capacity to the voice and data system already for indoor retail users. This is a photo simulation, and this is showing what the canisters will look like. The image on the left is their existing light pole, and the one on the right, you'll see what the modified light pole will look like This is near Trader Joe's, and the red dot is the general location of the light pole. This is a second photo simulation, and this one is near the Home Depot. And again, you can see how the canister will change the light pole appearance. An alternative site analysis was not warranted for this particular project as the proposed facilities are intended to take advantage of the existing parking lot light poles to provide targeted in-building wireless coverage within the retail space at the Woodbury Town Center. As explained by the applicant, a larger macro facility, such as a monopine, could provide broader area coverage. However, it would not achieve the targeted in-building coverage objectives within the commercial center. The wireless ordinance also requires applicants to assess the feasibility of alternative configurations to lower the antenna's classification or visual impact. And again, these are proposed class six facilities. So the class one, two, four, and five would not meet the objectives of the applicants The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under class 15303 for small structures. Hearing notices were published in the Irvine World News and posted per city requirements and staff has not received any comments Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 26-4084. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentation. The applicant is present and they'd like to say a few words.

Good evening, members of the commission. Eric Mears with PlanCom representing Verizon Wireless. And I'm just here to thank staff for all their time and effort in preparation of this project. And I'm available for any questions you have, and I'll keep it short and simple.

Thank you. I'll 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. Chair, there are no public comments on this item. All right, thank you.

I'll close the public hearing then and open up commission deliberations. Do any of my fellow commissioners have questions, comments on this item? Seth, Commissioner Grossman.

It's request to speak is not working today. Just two very quick questions for the applicant, if possible. And it's also a little bit for an education purpose. So this way of putting the canister, you're saying it doesn't reach, it's not for about homeowners or everything in the association. It's very tart. Can you just explain that a little bit so I can understand?

So the intent here is to improve the coverage in the Woodbury Town Center. We're working closely with Irvine Company to kind of try this because as of now, if you go into Home Depot and you're trying to use your phone, it's difficult to get coverage in there as well as the Ralphs and other things. So this is something new that we're trying with the smart pole base that we're using. And if it works well, we want to try it elsewhere. But it's a small cell design, so it's not intended to cover a broad area. They just cover a minimal area and just kind of target into the retail area and the parking lot there.

And has this been established in other locations?

The specific design has not been used, but we've done small cells quite regularly all over the place. So small cell is nothing new. In fact, you see them around Testa Marketplace, and I think there are others in the city as well, where we've used Edison light poles and others to do the small cell with the canisters at top. All over Newport Beach as well. It is quite new. frequent that we use a small cell when we can't use a macro site or where we need more you know in areas like let's say like a transportation station or something where where they want to add more capacity without you know overshadowing the rest of the wireless network okay very interesting new technology and then the last question what is the time frame for if this is approved what when would when would this be completed well we go through plan check probably you know two to three months and then we hope to start construction before the end of the year Nothing further. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Mansfield?

Yes, about how long is it going to take to install each pulling canister?

Timeline, I'd say, overall timeline for installation, probably a few months. You know, the... pole base manufacturer comes in first, and then they will do the utility portion, bringing the fiber and the power to each one of those individual poles, and then they will set the pole base and the light pole itself, and make it ready for us to come and install our radios and antennas, and it shouldn't take too long from there.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Great design. Thank you. Thank you.

Would anyone else like to make a comment, question? No? And I guess we could be open for a motion. Thank you. Thank you. I see a motion and a second. Could we please set up the voting?

Chair Stark, the motion to approve has passed.

Thank you. I will move on to item four then and open the public hearing. And Director Frady, can you please introduce the item?

Yes. This is a vesting tentative track map, conditional use permit, and park plan for the Encore residential project located at 19712 through 19782 MacArthur Boulevard in Planning Area 36, Irvine Business Complex. Presenting tonight is Senior Planner Erica Hong, joined by Principal Planner Ann Wu.

Thank you, Director Frady, and good evening, commissioners. The project site is highlighted in yellow on the slide and is located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard in the Irvine Business Complex. Of note, this specific area of the city is within the local coastal zone. Projects within the local coastal zone are subject to the Local Coastal Program, or LCP, as adopted by city council and certified by the California Coastal Commission. The subject property is designated business industrial and the general plan land use element and is designated mixed use high intensity in the Irvine zoning ordinance per the LCP. Redevelopment of the project site is subject to the point system, which establishes the maximum development intensity for the site. The site is currently developed with eight commercial buildings, all of which would be demolished prior to construction of the proposed residential development. Surrounding uses include Google to the north and commercial to the west and south within the city of Newport Beach and office uses to the west. The 14.21 gross acre site is proposed to be subdivided into four numbered lots and public right-of-way to facilitate the residential apartment development with densities as shown on the slide. The conditional use permit request is to develop a 830-unit apartment complex featuring three five-story wrap buildings with a concealed seven-story parking structure, rooftop amenities, and on-site recreation areas. The architectural style is contemporary in nature and incorporates articulated facades, varied material treatments, stucco, horizontal siding, and metal accents. Varied elevations, balconies, and articulated massing break up the building scale along the street frontages at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The project will set aside a total of 96 units affordable to very low and moderate income households. The number also satisfies the 15% inclusionary housing requirement in the local coastal program, which is calculated based on the project's base density. Using the point system, the project is allowed a maximum of 640 base units. 15% of that base density equals 96 units, so the project meets the inclusionary requirements. Because 58 of the 96 affordable units are restricted for very low income households, which is 9% of the base units, the project qualifies for a 30% density bonus. That bonus increases the allowable unit count from the 640 unit base to a total of 832 units for the project. But please note that the project is only requesting a total of 830 units. Under state density bonus law, the applicant is requesting two waivers as shown on the slide. The areas encroaching into their required street setback, identified as the private park on the park plan, are predominantly adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard with a smaller portion adjacent to Jamboree Road. Also, the project proposes three family pools that range in size from 900 to 936 square feet that meet the length and depth required, but not the size, as the pools are located at the rooftop amenity above the parking structure, and due to the location and design of the drive aisles of the parking structure below it, would be constrained in expansion. As the waiver requests are consistent with state density bonus law, staff is obligated to recommend approval. The on-site amenities for all three buildings will be connected via walkways and the park will be accessible by all residents. Building A consists of two courtyard areas and a roof amenity. Building B will consist of one courtyard and a roof terrace. And building C also consists of one courtyard and roof terrace. Typical amenities in the courtyards include barbecue spaces, fitness rooms, lounge seating, and permanent shade structures. And typical rooftop amenities will include pools, multipurpose rooms with kitchens, barbecue areas, restrooms and showers, and numerous seating areas. There will also be a private Lanier Park located at the south central portion of the development, featuring a tot lot, shade plantings, outdoor lounge areas, and a dog lawn. All turf throughout the development will be natural. TOGETHER, THESE AMENITIES CONTRIBUTE TOWARD THE PROJECT'S NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CREDIT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH CONSIST OF 1.45 ACRES OF LAND DEDICATION, 1.65 ACRES WORTH OF IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE REMAINING .4 ACRE WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH PAYMENT OF IN-LIEU FEES. THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ON JUNE 10TH AND BY THE COMMUNITY AND LIBRARY SERVICE COMMISSION ON MAY 6TH. BOTH ADVISORY BODIES RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. The project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Assembly Bill 130, and notice of the Planning Commission hearing was provided on May 28, 2026. Staff has received one comment thus far from the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. With that, staff recommends approval of the project as detailed on the slide. Staff and the applicant team are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation. Would the applicant like to say a few words?

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Stark and commissioners. My name is Patrick Strader with Starpoint Ventures. I've been working with the applicant on this project for over two years. It's been an incredible process. The project wouldn't be what it is today without Erica's hard work and the rest of the community development staff. Erica has been fantastic to work with. And I'm so pleased that we could bring it to you before we lose her to her maternity leave. So put a little pressure on you for timing here. We've really enhanced the project in terms of some of the corner treatments, some of the pedestrian scale. When you see it from above, it's really hard to understand the scale of the project because the grade of the park that you see alongside MacArthur is almost 20 feet above the sidewalk. and in some places even more. So in 2D, it doesn't look as varied and interesting as it will in 3D. The work done by Architects Orange on the... architecture here is fantastic. I am so impressed with the work that they've done. You can see on the slides here. In fact, we as a team have nominated them for an award for the golden nuggets for this architecture because it is so beautiful. Hans Sacker has done an incredible job as the civil engineer laying out all of the sewers and all of the infrastructure across a 14-acre site, which is a pretty impressive site in the IBC. And so we have Mark Schattenger with MJS, who did all of the landscape planning and the parks that you see in front of you. Tom Sakai, who's been doing affordable housing plans here in the city for over 20 years, helped considerably getting through the affordable housing plan and density bonus agreement with staff. And then I really want to give credit to Chris Burt from Cox Castle who's here, and it's a backhanded compliment because without him, I'm not sure anybody would have ever realized that this was a coastal permit zone. And most of the entitlement was approved in 1982. So in 21 years of entitling projects, I had to throw all of it in the trash can and relearn everything for this project. It's been fascinating to see and go back and try to find sidewalk plans and park plans from the 80s. As you all probably know, most of the development that you see in front of you really started in 92 with the EIR and the IBC. So to go back to like 82 and be pulling documents and trying to find the metrics to put up in front of you has been both fun and academically interesting. And again, we need to thank Stephanie and Jen and the whole staff here for incredible work in trying to come up with something in 2026 that looks and functions like the rest of the projects you guys see, but is still based upon the original approvals of 1982. So I would imagine you may have some questions and the whole team is here to answer them for you if you have any, but we look forward to your approval of this project here this evening.

Thank you, Mr. Strater. Do we have any public comments on the 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, we do have one present in the chamber, Brian Farkas.

Good evening, Chair and Planning Commission. My name is Brian Farkas. I represent the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. We represent thousands of skilled union carpenters and apprentices throughout Southern California, including many who live and work here in Orange County. As you consider the Encore residential project, we urge you to prioritize strong labor standards, including the use of skilled and trained workforce and meaningful local hire opportunities. Projects of this scale should create not only housing, but quality career opportunities for local residents. These standards provide significant benefits in the Irvine community. Local hire helps keep project dollars circulating within the local economy, supporting local businesses and families, and skilled and trained workforce helps ensure high-quality construction, promotes worker and public safety, and reduces the risk of costly defects and future infrastructure issues. In addition, state-approved apprenticeship programs create pathways into the middle class for local residents while developing the next generation of construction professionals. We respectfully ask that the City secure these commitments as part of the project's continuing setting high standards for responsible development in Irvine. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments. Okay, yeah, no problem.

Baldwin Keenan. I'm an old carpenter. I live in El Camino Real. I'm in the same track where I got my first job. But saying that, I was involved in affordable housing in the... with the Jamboree Housing Corporation. And I must say that it looks like advances are made on this project from what we did. However, at the time I started, many of us working on the track were living, we got housing in Irvine at that time. We knew each other, we worked together, we were in the Carpenters Union, and we were able to buy houses in Irvine. There was some rental, but not that much at that time. At any rate, I think that, I know this might seem out of line, but I think you need to double the amount of affordable housing if we're ever going to get housing for the construction workforce. And the project of this scale can do it. It's big enough. And I'm looking at the numbers. Maybe close to 10% is affordable housing if you combine the very affordable with the low. Making 20% of the project affordable would not be outlandish. It would greatly increase the ability for carpenters, cement masons, floor layers. The whole construction workforce and residential could live here in that project. I think you have to do it. use this project to be an example to other builders.

Thank you for coming in and making a comment. I appreciate it. Is that the last public comment?

Chair, this concludes public comments for this item. Okay.

Then I will close the public hearing and open up commission deliberations. Would any of my fellow commissioners like to speak? Commissioner Mansfield, start with you. Yes.

Thank you. If I could call up Mr. Schrader. So if I may ask a question about what traffic would look like in the area. Obviously Jamboree, I live in the IBC myself. Traffic is always a question for our residents in the city. What is our traffic flow gonna look like around the proposed property?

Thank you. That's a great question, Commissioner Mansfield. And I appreciate you calling to my attention that I forgot to introduce Ken Wilhelm with LSA, who did the traffic work on this project, and the adjacent one, which was scheduled for tonight, but you'll be hearing in a month. So truly, and we've known this for 20-plus years, and it's counterintuitive, however, the traffic studies again and again have borne out that...

Was it something I said? OK.

When you have residential and you have people coming and going at different times, it is an improvement on the peak hour trips from when you have offices where everybody comes at 8 or peak hour 8 to 9.30, and they all leave after work in the peak hour in the PM. So you get a much bigger distribution of traffic when you have residential because you have people coming and going at all different times of the day versus everybody coming and leaving. Nowadays, you use VMT versus the peak hour. You use both. But VMT screening on this one had shown, again, that it's a better situation than what exists there today. And AB 130, we went through a lot of traffic screening with Sun Sun and her team. And they provided great comments with LSA. So again, it was a hugely collaborative effort to get in front of you this evening where city staff and our traffic consultant went back and forth on which intersections they wanted us to study and looked at all the impacts and no impacts found.

Wonderful. And if I may just ask one last question here. It's totally understandable if you haven't, but if you do get an opportunity, if you could look into the HUD-VASH program within the affordable housing dynamic here. Obviously, affordable housing is always on everybody's discussion plate. As a veteran of the armed forces myself, I try to advocate for my brothers and sisters in uniform and make sure we're looking after veterans that do benefit from HUD-VASH, which is a form of affordable housing for veterans.

So just perfect. First of all, thank you for your service. And second of all, I think somebody from staff could do a better job of explaining than I can. But the way that we typically do this affordable housing is When we have the units that are deed restricted for affordable, we work with the city's housing department. And they actually administer the lotteries in terms of people signing up and qualifying. They do the qualifying. They do the lottery. On the example of the garden communities project at Jamboree and campus, I believe there were over 7,000 people that entered that lottery. So that the developer isn't in the middle of hard feelings and, you know, manipulating anything potentially, what happens is the city's housing department administers the lottery, they select the people, and they then... YOU KNOW, ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM. AND WE WERE WORKING WITH ERICA ON THERE'S A NEW IRVINE FIRST PRIORITY SYSTEM THAT THE CITY HOUSING DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO PUT IN PLACE. AND WE'VE AGREED TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF ON THAT AS THEY IMPLEMENT THAT PROGRAM. BUT I WAS UNAWARE OF HUD-BASH, AND I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU GUYS WORK WITH HITA, WHO'S THE CITY'S HOUSING DIRECTOR, AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS WERE REPRESENTED. IT LOOKS LIKE STEPHANIE MAY HAVE A COMMENT.

Yeah, our housing policy is a community preference policy that is administered through our health and wellness division up in the city manager's office. There are different priority levels that we can cater to, including workforce housing, including veterans housing, including special needs housing. that could be prioritized by project, actually, depending on the need in that area and at that time. So, yes, it would be through our housing manager, but it is a community preference policy for those who live and work in Irvine.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, everybody, for answering my questions.

Commissioner Pearson?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things that I wanted to talk about was I do wish that we were getting a 50% increase in the housing bonus. That would have meant we would have more low and very low units. I agree that we need to have a workplace workforce location. Now, I understand the dynamics of the profitability of a project, the cost of this project, but I would ask the applicant to look into the potential of increasing the affordable units. I've got a question relating to a couple comments The applicant is reserving the option to file a condominium plan or track map for the project in the future. They're reserving that capability. What is the impact to our decision tonight if they come back and ask for that?

Thank you so much, Commissioner Pearson. So just to clarify, as part of the request tonight, there is a request for a vesting tentative track map. The applicant did request to reserve the right to file a condominium plan in the future, but that would not necessarily impact any of the project tonight.

Okay, so it would be over and above what we're doing tonight. They would come back, make application, and go through the mapping process to that specific design plan.

And Commissioner Pearson, what that would do in essence would be an airspace subdivision to allow for individual sale of the units as condominiums instead of as leasing as apartments.

And that would not impact our affordable units whatsoever?

Well, there's provisions in the conditions of approval to account for that. They would remain as affordable, but they would be affordable for sale units for the period of affordability.

Okay. That answers my question on that. I've got to commend Architects Orange and the design staff for probably one of the best looking projects that I've seen in a long time. The utilization of the property is extremely well thought out. I know there's elevation changes. You're asking for various waivers because of some of the physical and limitations of the design. I think that from an architectural standpoint, we've got a very good project. The map that we're approving, I do have a question Is this vesting map eliminating lot lines and easements? Are we putting a new map over and eliminating a lot of existing issues?

So this new map is taking the existing large parcel and dividing it into four numbered lots for residential purposes. So it's not necessarily taking away any easements or anything like that.

So there's no underlying easements that are currently going to exist after this map?

There are existing easements that would continue to exist, but none are being taken away.

OK.

I'll let.

We can circle back to you.

Yeah.

Okay. Commissioner Ambrose.

Thank you. Thank you to staff for a great presentation and thank you to the applicant. I also want to concur and congratulate the architects. The design looks absolutely amazing and I think it will add to the value, to the aesthetic value of the city of Irvine and bring some So a wonderful, wonderful energy to that area of the city. I have just a couple very detailed questions. In regards to the variance related to the setback, from my understanding, the rationale is because of the elevation change. You're not concerned. But could you just help me understand that a little bit better? Again, maybe a 2D or a 3D thing.

Yes, thank you so much for the question, Commissioner Grossman. So just to clarify, the applicant is actually not requesting a variance from the setback requirement. They're asking to receive credit for... Correct.

That was what I meant. Please.

Yes. So they're asking to receive credits for the park amenities and land within the setback area.

Right. Okay. I'll clarify. Normally, we would not get part credit for something that's in a setback area. They're asking for this as part of the credit. Why is it necessary to do it in that setback area, essentially? There's a reason why we normally don't put it there, but I'm guessing there's a geographic or reason why we need to do it on this one, but can you help me understand that a little bit better?

Yes, absolutely. So due to the way that the buildings are designed, the setback area is really the only space that the park amenities can go in. Should the park amenities be located in a different area, it would require a different building design, which under state density bonus law, they're entitled to a waiver. And that waiver allows them to request this credit in the setback area.

Would you? Commissioner Grossman, thank you, Erica. Fantastic response. So the state density bonus law says that anything that would be a financial constraint to providing that 15% affordable housing cannot be implemented. But the question I think I heard you asking is, Why is this different than many other sites? Many other sites that we do are all . So typically, when you have a building and it's set back from the road, you wouldn't want people running right up to the side of the road. In this case, everything from the outer wall line that you see down Jamboree, down MacArthur, all of that is up. 8, 12, 16, 20-plus feet. And so when you're living there, you're going to have full use of the area right out to that extra wall. People down below have the pedestrian experience, but they're both below and behind the wall. So there are emergency exits. You can see the staircases along. jamboree for fire and to get in and out into the pedestrian, but it is basically secure from that exterior wall back and much higher than the road. So that's why we thought that this was actually a good use of that setback area because it is private and not, you're not asking people to go play right up in traffic.

Okay. That actually helps clarify it for me. While I have you here, just two more comments. First of all, I agree with my fellow Commissioners, if you could look into increasing the affordable components of this, we would strongly encourage you to do so. And this is an area of the city where we believe there's a strong need and a strong workforce. I would ask you to just take that into consideration, and anything possible that you could do as a design team and as a management team to do so would be greatly appreciated by the city.

If I could just briefly comment, we did go back and forth with Eric on about, I would say, eight or nine different pro formas looking at different opportunities on this. The problem with this site is because of the 82 LCP, the maximum density was only 45 to the acre. So as you guys recall from your last hearing where we talked about trying to maximize density in the IBC, we started at a max of 45. We had to use density bonus to even get to the density you see in front of you. So it's a very complex Sudoku puzzle where when you move one thing, other things then fall out and different things happen. So we will continue, though, as the project is refined, to look for opportunities to increase the affordable housing.

I recognize the challenge and appreciate you willing to continue to look at the opportunity. The other opportunity I would encourage you to look at is I heard the presentation by Mr. Farkas and our brothers in the labor movement and talking about affordable housing workforce, workforce housing, workforce development, being able to minimize the number of trips into the city, being able to provide jobs and opportunities for our skilled laborers. I can't require you to do so, but I would strongly encourage you to work closely with our labor union members and prevailing wages and look at how you can make that be a model, as our commenter said, be a model project for our community. I would strongly encourage you to do so. Council Member Liu and I are very focused on that, so please do.

Just happy to do so. A word on that. I've been talking to Leonard De La Rosa and Jimmy Elrod from the Carpenters for about two years about this project. I talked to Jimmy, who wrote the letter to you all today, and I think there was confusion because the name changed. So we've been talking all the way through, and we'll continue to dialogue with them. I reached out to Leonard Monday, and then when I saw the letter, I called Jimmy with the Carpenters and said, hey... You guys never called me back on Monday. It turned out that when it changed from CenterPoint, because there's another CenterPoint in Irvine, to Encore CenterPoint, whatever tracking system they have told them it was a different project. So we've been talking to them all along. We will continue to talk to them. We appreciate their testimony here tonight, and we value the work that they do for sure.

That's good to hear, and I appreciate that. Thank you. Nothing further.

All right.

Thank you. Commissioner Delacusack.

Thank you chair, thank you staff for a great presentation. Thank you to the applicant. One of the best presentations I've seen here at the IBC. I'm looking forward to following its progress. I drove by with my son a couple days ago just to see the site. I used to work in the IBC. Matter of fact, before I moved to Irvine, I was commuting to the IBC. I wish there was stuff like this because that would have saved me a lot of time like on the commute. That being said, I do agree with my fellow commissioners that should look into more affordable housing and our speakers here. And that I like that you're having a conversations with our labor. UNIONS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD SKILLED LABOR WHO WILL BUILD THIS. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. STRADER. THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT OFFICE OVER THERE. ARE THERE STILL TENANTS THERE OR ARE YOU GOING TO WAIT FOR THEM UNTIL THEIR LEASE IS IN? HOW IS THIS GOING TO GO INTO THE TIMELINE FOR CONSTRUCTION?

That's a great question. I appreciate you asking because I did not go through the fact that this is an ownership comprised of four separate property owners that all came together to pursue this together. So they have cost-sharing agreements. They coordinate. They meet internally. We provide them with updates. Circle Vision, Doug Circle, who's here, Billy Takeda from his team, they have been elected by their co-owners as the master... They are the ones running the process for all of them. So to answer your question, all of the four owners have elected to participate and have also been really renewing leases on a year-by-year basis with knowledge that this was coming. So there are some existing leases in place that will have to run their course, not too long, but they have, for the last at least two years, been rolling people into year by year. And I think some of them on new leases have put in a cancellation notice in terms of if this is approved, they are allowed to terminate the lease. So there are no... 10-year leases or anything that will prevent these from being constructed these will definitely you know be able to qualify under this rena cycle so a great question and all of the owners are are similarly motivated to redeveloping this property

When do you anticipate demolition of those existing structures?

That's a great question as well. I probably should have mentioned, because those four owners are longtime property owners but not residential developers, the next step after the approval will be to market and sell the project to a professional apartment slash home builder and so to Commissioner Pearson's question for sure it'll be coming back because what we had to do in order to create a marketable and sellable project is get through this process and be able to sell something and then when the end buyer is selected they will put their own spin on this hopefully they won't change any of the architecture but as they sort of refine the plan there's opportunities to talk about additional affordability There's opportunities to talk with the city about additional park. We had a question about somebody whether the city could use in lieu fees to buy pieces for pocket parks. So all of those discussions will happen and the commission will hear it again as the final project comes forward. But this is the first step towards that.

Excellent. Great site. I know it borders Newport Beach to see a great entrance into Irvine is always good that we're always open for business and welcoming new people.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pearson, do you have any more?

No, I think my fellow commissioners have been able to answer my questions with their questions. So I did have a couple of technical ones, and I'm not going to belabor the issue. So I'll give it back to you.

Yeah, I would echo what a lot of my fellow commissioners said about the project. It looks great. I like the density, the on-site affordable. The parks look nice, the amenities. It's nice to see that corridor get denser every year, which I think will make it a more dynamic part of the city. To help answer one question from a public commenter, can we talk about how the state density bonus works? If they provide 15%, of the units affordable, then they get a certain bonus. It's either 30% or 50%. That 30% or 50% isn't required to have affordable, so it looks like the overall percentage is low, right?

Yes, thank you so much, Commissioner Stark. So this project is providing 9% very low income units, and that 9% entitles them to a 30% density bonus. Should they be providing 15% very low, it would entitle them to a 50% density bonus.

Like on the Fairfield project?

Correct.

Okay, that was the difference. Okay, that's all I have. If everyone's done, we can take motions. All right, we have one.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to adopt resolution 264079, 264080, and 264081, approving the vesting tentative track map, conditional use permit, and park plan for the Encore residential project.

Okay, looks like we have a second. Commissioner Mansfield, could we please set up the voting?

Chair, the motion to approve all three resolutions has passed.

Wonderful. Thank you. Then I will advise that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Thursday, July 16th, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Reminder, the July 2nd Planning Commission meeting is canceled. It is now 6.30 p.m. and I'll declare the meeting of June 18th, 2026 adjourned. Thank you.