Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress

I was just waiting for Commissioner Bathia, yeah. All right, so I know the recording has started. So it is now 529, and I'm going to call the Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, July 16, 2026 to order. Could the Recording Secretary please conduct a roll call?

Commissioner Pearson.

Present.

Commissioner Mansfield.

Present.

Commissioner Grossman.

Here.

Commissioner Dela Cusack.

Here.

Commissioner Bhatia.

Present.

Vice Chair Lin. Here. Chair Stark.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. Now if we could all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, and Commissioner Grossman is going to lead us. Right. So now we'll open public comments for non-agendized items. This would include any item not on tonight's agenda. Are there any 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 have one speaker on Zoom. Mario, you'll go ahead and unmute. Go ahead, Mario. Mario, we are unable to hear you in the chamber. Are you unmuted?

I am unmuted. I did raise the volume. Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Oh, OK. Thank you very much. Yeah. So my concern is not whether or not this project should proceed or politicize. It's not a nimble statement. Please don't misinterpret it. But I have, and groups here have, a serious concern about the methodology. Issues of safety, traffic ramifications, noise, There's so many issues here that would need to be discussed at a future meeting and agendized. The other thing is that the mission statement of that particular parish changed from a local parish to what they described as a landmark Marian, which means the Virgin Mary, Marian pilgrimage, which would allow for or people from other countries to be involved. And that sort of deviates from the original mission of being a local church parish, which is a wonderful thing. But also the environment, they're talking about digging two stories down a parking structure. We have only single wide parking. roads here, Roosevelt, Cabuco, Remington, they can't handle the volume. So some mitigations to this plan need to be considered, in my opinion. And I just respectfully request that maybe you can agendize this issue and discuss and look into it further. Thank you.

Mario, just to confirm, you were cut off in the beginning. You're discussing the Our Lady of Peace project.

That is correct. Maybe agendizing that because of some very serious concerns about the project and the result of the project and the magnitude of the project.

I understand. Thank you for your comment.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Of course.

Chair, this concludes public comments for non-agendized items.

Thank you. Now we'll go to introductions. Director Frady, do we have any introductions?

No introductions tonight, Chair.

How about staff reports?

No staff reports.

All right. Do any of my fellow commissioners have announcements or reports they'd like to make? No. All right. Director Frady, do we have any additions or deletions?

None tonight.

Okay. Then we'll move on to the consent calendar. All items listed will be enacted 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 specific discussion. So I'll go ahead and open the public comments.

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

Okay, thank you. So I guess I'll take a motion.

Make a motion to approve the consent calendar item.

Okay, do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, Commissioner Grossman seconds. Could we please set up the vote?

For the record, I was able to review the last meeting, so I'm voting on it.

Thank you.

Chair, the motion has passed with Commissioner Lin abstaining.

Wonderful, thank you. All right, so we'll move on to item two. I'll open the public hearing and ask Director Frady to please introduce the item.

Thank you. Item two is 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. Presenting tonight is Senior Planner Erica Hong, joined by Planning Manager Alyssa Matthews.

Thank you, Director Frady, and good evening, Commissioners. The project site is highlighted in yellow on this slide and is located off Fairchild Road in the Irvine Business Complex. This area of the city is within the local coastal zone and is subject to the Local Coastal Program, or LCP, AND THE POINT SYSTEM. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALSO DESIGNATED BUSINESS INDUSTRIAL IN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND IS DESIGNATED MIXED USE HIGH INTENSITY IN THE IRVINE ZONING ORDINANCE PER THE LCP. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WHICH WERE PERMITTED THROUGH A PRIOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE GOOGLE TO THE NORTH, THE IRVINE COMPANY BRINDERSON TOWERS TO THE SOUTH, THE CENTERPOINT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO THE WEST AND THE SAN JOAQUIN MARSH TO THE EAST. Due to the previously existing CUP issued for the site and unique nature of the point system in place, additional text was incorporated into Section 6 of Resolution 26-4082 to memorialize the development potential established by the prior CUP for both the subject property and the other property that was part of the party to the CUP, the adjacent Brindison Towers site. The site itself is 6.23 acres in size, and the conditional use permit request is to develop a 422-unit residential apartment complex featuring one six-story wrap building with a concealed seven-story parking structure, rooftop amenities, and onsite recreation areas. The development will also feature a small 1,100-square-foot accessory retail component. The proposed architecture of the building is modern and coastal inspired, drawing from the San Joaquin Marsh located across the road. The building incorporates articulated facades and varied material treatments, including stucco, wood paneling, and metal accents to break up the building's steel and massing along the street frontage. Under state density bonus law, this project will set aside 43 units for very low income households. That 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 281 base units. 15% of that base density equals 43 units, so the project meets the inclusionary requirement. Because all 43 affordable units are restricted for very low income households, the project qualifies for a 50% density bonus. That bonus increases the allowable unit count from the 281 unit base to a total of 422 units. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ONE INCENTIVE AND TWO WAIVERS AS SHOWN ON THE SLIDE UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. PER THE INCENTIVE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RECEIVE LAND AND IMPROVEMENT CREDIT FOR THE COURTYARDS WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY LESS THAN 6,000 SQUARE FOOT IN SIZE BUT TOGETHER TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 12,000 SQUARE FEET. PER THE TWO WAIVERS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR A PORTION OF THE GREEN BELT LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACK AREA ALONG FAIRCHILD ROAD. and is requesting to provide a 20-foot rear setback instead of the 30-foot setback. As the incentive and waiver requests are consistent with state density bonus law, staff is obligated to recommend approval. For the on-site park areas, typical amenities in the courtyards will include barbecue spaces, fitness rooms, lounge seating, and permanent shade structures. Typical rooftop amenities will include pools, multipurpose rooms with kitchens, barbecue areas, restrooms, showers, and numerous seating areas. There will also be a private greenbelt located at the eastern portion of the development along Fairchild Road, featuring shade plantings, outdoor lounge areas, and turf areas. All turf throughout the development will be natural. Together, these amenities contribute toward the project's neighborhood park credit requirements. The project will dedicate land in the amount of 0.58 acre toward neighborhood parks with 0.98 acres worth of improvements, and the remaining 0.23 acres will be satisfied through payment of an in-lieu fee. ON MAY 6, THE COMMUNITY AND LIBRARY SERVICES COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PARK PLAN WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE SLIDE. THE APPLICANT HAS INCORPORATED ALL THIS FEEDBACK INTO THE PLANS TO INCLUDE THE LOW NATURAL HEDGE BARRIER ALONG FAIRCHILD ROAD IN BETWEEN THE GREEN BELT AND THE SIDEWALK AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANT PALETTE NOW CONSISTS OF DROUGHT RESISTANT NATIVE AND COASTAL INSPIRED PLANTS THAT DRAW FROM THE PROJECT'S PROXIMITY TO THE SAN JOAQUIN MARSH. Finally, dog refuse stations have been placed throughout the Greenbelt along Fairchild Road. The project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Assembly Bill 130, and hearing and continuation notices were mailed, published, and posted accordingly. The project was continued from the June 18th hearing to today's hearing to allow the applicant and adjacent property owner additional time to work out a private agreement which has now been finalized. Out of that private agreement, a minor design change to the private street leading to the adjacent property, the Brinderson Towers, occurred, which has now been reflected on the updated plan sheet included as attachment two. Staff has not received any comments thus far. With that, staff recommends approval of the project as detailed on the slide. Staff and the applicant team are available for any questions, and the applicant has also prepared a presentation. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation, Erica. Would the applicant like to do a presentation now?

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, commissioners, staff. We have a very short presentation. Like Erica alluded to, our project is located in the IBC in Planning Area 36 in a very unique location that overlaps with the local coastal plan. The site is bounded by Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard and adjacent to the San Joaquin Marsh Reserve. It's located close to UCI Medical Center campus as well as University Research Park and the UC Irvine campus. Much of the architecture for the project is inspired by the nature of which it sits next to. The architectural vision for the project is a California coastal modern architectural style. It prioritizes integration between the interior spaces and the exterior environments, and we did our best to shape the building profiles around the organic geometry that you can find in the Seattle Arcane Marsh right next door. The shapes are brought into the facade there, as you can see on our renderings. And we're trying to optimize nature views from the project by bringing in some really clean geometry with contemporary architectural lines that features really expansive balconies that extend the living areas from indoor to outdoor. It utilizes a really light and restrained material palette, and we hope that it provides a timeless, inviting, and kind of a resort-like character for the neighborhood. So these are some of the imagery that you may have seen in Erica's slides, but we have a couple of additional, and I'll slowly go through them. So you can see kind of the architectural features that we've integrated into this design. And these three views are from the Fairchild Road. This is the primary entrance and driveway into the project and the main leasing lobby area of the project. And these are the forms that I spoke of briefly regarding those organic elements. The main entrance into the project. The opposite corner, this is the corner that is closest to the Brindersen Towers. And the backside view of the rear yard of the project. So we here with me tonight are our architect as well as our landscape architects. So we'd like to make ourselves available for any questions should you have them.

Thank you. Thank you. I guess now is the time we open public comments. Do we have any public comments?

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

Okay, thank you. Then I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the commission deliberations. Let's see if we have any commissioners that would like to speak. Commissioner Pearson.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've just got a couple questions. I want to commend AC Martin on a phenomenal design. I think it's very striking. I would like to know, what are the building materials on the outside?

Good evening, Commission. Jeff Mertzel with AC Martin. So the building materials are primarily a light finish stucco, white finish stucco. And we wanted to keep the palette fairly clean and light. So the railings, we have glass railings that are transparent and then a white metal railing that matches the facade. And then you can see the wood paneling. We have those throughout the project, kind of going from the lower element all the way to the top. And on the main corner, there's a lot of storefront glass. I think that's primarily. And we have wood lattice. On the side elevation, there's some wood lattice that goes vertically up the facade.

Another question is, on the mezzanine level, looking at the floor plans, it appears that There are residential projections. Is that a second story? My question is, you've got condensers for the air conditioning systems all around there. And I'm uncertain as to the noise level that could be created at that location.

So you're correct. They're loft-type units. So it's two stories. So you have a staircase that goes up to the second level. So there's glass that's on the facade that goes from the first story to the second story. So the majority of the lofts or mezzanines are actually located internal to the project, more off the courtyards. But there are a few off of Fairchild. I think there's like four units that are off of Fairchild Road.

Do they have windows? Are they operable windows at that location on those?

On the top, they're not operable.

Sorry, let me jump in. So there are operable windows. You can kind of see a few of those lofts right there facing Fairchild Road at the very top in the courtyard that comes in a little bit. So those are the only windows on the lofts. the loft level. The remainder of the loft are all solid walls. The backside, we've placed the stairwells near the backside of those lofts that are abutting the condensers that are sitting on the roof. So the construction of those lofts will have windows facing outwards or into the courtyards, while the walls will frame the back side of those lofts. So we believe that with the insulation that we plan on placing into these units, we will not have those noise concerns.

Is this construction concrete at the base or all steel studs or what's the framing on it?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner. It is a wood frame building, so the parking garage in the center is a type one concrete, and then the residential portion all the way around will be wood frame on slab on grade.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Mansfield.

Yes, hello there. So just a couple quick questions. But first, I'd like to start off with, I'd like to thank you at the AC Martin for this wonderful presentation and this design today. I think this is the perfect type of forward-thinking aesthetics we like to see in the city. The question I do have though is, obviously Jamboree and MacArthur are some of the hardest working arterial systems in the city, and I would like to ask about the construction logistics. Obviously we have a construction plan in the city, but can you walk us through the staging and the haul route for the construction plan, how you plan to keep peak hour rates low for traffic?

We haven't quite gotten into the construction plan and the haul route. It will be addressed as we get through permitting for the building, and we'll of course make sure that construction operations are in line with the conditions of approval so that we do not impact standard operations of the businesses around MacArthur and Jamboree.

Fantastic. Thank you. And then one last one. What are you most proud of in this project that we may not see just from the report here and the design concepts?

I'm really proud of the architectural facade. I know that is something that you've already seen, but I think it brings something fresh and new to the city. We tried really hard to blend residential with the adjacent business usages. You know, traditional residential doesn't quite have this kind of profile, this kind of look and feel, but we felt that because it was adjacent to so many businesses, to, you know, the beautiful Henderson Towers, which A.C. Martin also designed, that it was a little bit of a risky architecture style, but we're really proud of that, and we're proud of our team to be able to bring that to commission.

Fantastic. And then where in the property is the seven-story parking structure going to go? I'm sorry if I missed that.

It is in the center of all of the residential. So if you can see in the rendering there where the pool structure is, so that pool sits on top of the seven-story parking structure. So it's bounded by the four elevator towers. That's where the parking structure is.

Fantastic. Thank you. I'm a resident of the Irvine Business Center, so I'd love to see how the traffic is going to look and how parking is going to look. Thank you so much. That's all my questions.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Lin?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, staff. And thank you for the applicant for bringing about this project. And thank you to the commissioners for asking great questions. I just had two quick questions. One is regarding bike parking. How many bike parking stalls will there be in the parking structure, if any?

I think we have provided 72 bike parking spaces. 72 bike parking spaces in line with the city of Irvine requirements.

Okay. 72 with 400. And will there, just a request, I don't know if the Community Services Commission had brought it up, but if we can provide just bike maintenance tools at the parking, it seemed like something convenient and appreciated by residents.

We have included the maintenance facilities inside the bike rooms in each bike room.

And then will there be restrictions in terms of residents wanting to park their bikes on the balcony, per se? Yes. There will be. OK. So 72 spots with a total of 422. OK. That's per the requirement. And that's, let me see if there's anything else. And then in terms of EV parking, how many stalls will there be? Do you know? Do you have that number, Erica?

I don't have the number off the top of my head. We can come back to you with that number. But it is, I believe, we are providing a minimum of 20% of all parking spaces per just our company's standards. But the actual number I have to get back to you on.

OK.

And vice chair, that is a building code requirement that will be checked during plan check.

Okay, great. Thank you. And thank you for making changes according to the community services with the native plants and such. So do appreciate that. Thank you very much for that. The designs are gorgeous. The concepts are beautiful. And I think that open air with the, you know, inside interior to going out concept is something that would be appreciated, especially in that area. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lin. How about Commissioner Bhatia?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the staff and applicant. I think it's aesthetically pleasing. I had a question regarding the affordable units. Is it fully integrated in the project and architecturally indistinguishable versus the market rate units?

Yes, they are.

They are. Okay, excellent. And piggybacking off of Commissioner Lin's question on EV chargers, are those all housed in the seven-story building and none exterior?

Yes, they are.

They are? Okay. No further questions. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner Bhatia. Commissioner Delacruzac.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, applicant, for showing and sharing these great designs. I'm so happy to see that there's decks to take advantage of the wonderful environment nearby, especially off Fairchild. I do have a couple questions. I know there's an existing commercial building over there. What is the timeline for demolition and all that?

It will depend heavily on our permitting schedule with the city. So we plan on proceeding with the building permit process. And current estimation, we'd like to start demolition work on the project, permit permitting, by the end of the year.

By the end of the year. And from there, what is the timeline to complete a project of this scale?

OUR CURRENT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE IS APPROXIMATELY 30 MONTHS.

30 MONTHS. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS THANK YOU.

THANKS COMMISSIONER DEL CUZAK. COMMISSIONER ROSEMAN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU STAFF. THANK YOU APPLICANT. ERICA THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WANTED JUST A COUPLE MAKE SURE CLARIFICATIONS. SO THE ERRATA THAT WE HAD HAD BEFORE HAS NOW BEEN FULLY INCORPORATED INTO THE CURRENT RESOLUTION.

That is correct.

OK. And the revised private street design that the applicant and the party have amicably agreed to as the only substantive change from June 18th?

Correct.

Okay. And I just want to clarify, does the resolution in any way make any new determinations about development rights for the adjacent MacArthur parcels? There's some language in there that I wanted to clarify around LCP and future. But first of all, first question is, does it make any declarations about future development rights for the MacArthur parcel adjacent?

It's consistent with the existing approvals.

Okay. So we're not making any findings regarding the MacArthur parcel? Correct. Correct. Okay. And it does... So this resolution does not make any... towards any future development in that area. So I guess my real question is, the LCP references, are they descriptive? Are they creating new legal rights? Why is that language necessary in this resolution? It seems superfluous to me, but I'm a little unclear.

We're pulling up that language right now, and we'll get back to you.

Maybe I can ask something else while we're just going. Should I? So one other question. So the affordable housing, you've taken advantage of the 50% density bonus. Has the applicant looked at ways of providing more affordable housing now that they've had the 50% density bonus, which they are allowed by law, but in order to try and provide more affordable housing in this project, was anything explored? Or would the applicant like to?

We did explore the unit mix for the affordability mix. I think previously it was skewed a little bit more towards you know, one beds and studios, working with Erica and with the housing group, we were able to shift some of those units towards kind of a larger unit mix or a more dense unit mix towards the twos and three bedrooms. We have not taken a look at adding additional low-income units to the project.

And I appreciate that you've done everything by law and by code, but recognizing the city cannot require additional affordable housing units. I mean, could I ask you to just voluntarily look at whether it's housing partnerships, whether it's working with trusts, whether it's working with nonprofit partners, but could I ask you to look into or commit to looking into, not commit to doing anything, but commit to looking into seeing if we can bring more affordability into cities into this project. That's one of the biggest challenges we have in our community. All of us have children that are going to be trying to afford to somehow move into these communities, and we need to make sure that we're all not old guys like me sticking around here. So would you be able to look into whether it's through partnerships or other ways of expanding the amount of affordable housing?

Yes, absolutely. We can definitely take a look at that.

I really appreciate that. And then the last thing, again, is a voluntary request. Today, we're talking about approvals, and I'm on board. But as we get into construction, I'd like for you to strongly consider using our union labor as much as possible in this project. As we move into these projects, it's going to be important that we try and bring those people so that they can also move in and live into our city and get good-paying jobs in projects like this. So I would hope that you would look into that.

Yes, absolutely. At CityView, we do have projects where we have partnered with union partners. We're familiar with a lot of the union subcontractors in the market, and we have spoken to a number of them, spoken to a number of the leadership groups. So we're absolutely on board. As long as the project works, we're absolutely on board with that.

at this moment in time, that's all I can ask of you, and I appreciate that.

Yeah, and if I could get back to your question about Section 7 in the resolution, that language is a little bit unusual, but it's really just intended to clarify that the development of this property doesn't have any impact on the neighboring property. It doesn't grant new rights, new development rights, new development points, anything along those lines. It just clarifies that this has no impact.

Okay. Which would have been, just from my own knowledge, it would have been the case had the language not been in there, it still would have not impacted any

That's correct. The neighboring property owner was very concerned about potential impacts and very vocal about including this language in. And because our feeling was the same as theirs, which is this has no impact, we felt like might as well put the language in and satisfy the vocal concerns of the very vocal neighboring property owner.

Sure. If it clarifies the status quo. Because it was unusual, I was concerned that it was somehow granting new rights or the language was

Doesn't do anything new or different. Just clarifies status quo.

Thank you for clarifying. I have no issues. Nothing further.

Thanks, Commissioner Grossman. I guess I'm last. I'll say that I also really like the architecture. I really like the vision. I think it's a great spot for that. I don't have any questions of my own. I see Commissioner Batia has some more.

JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION, GIVEN LIKE THE PREVIOUS OAK CREEK PLANNING AREA 52 CONNECTIVITY TO ADJUST IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, GIVEN THE PROJECT'S VISIBILITY WITH THE FAIRCHILD ROAD AND THE SAN JUANQUIN MARSH IN PROXIMITY TO IT, WHAT DESIGN FEATURES WOULD HAVE THAT CONNECTIVITY OR ANY DESIGN FEATURES THAT WOULD HAVE A GATEWAY TO THIS TYPE OF LANDMARK?

It is directly across. So outside of that and us bringing in the architectural features into the project, we have not designed in any specific pathways or streets that tie to the marsh at this point.

Is that feasible and possible? I'm just curious.

I'm not sure.

I mean, it's a great attribute just to have.

Design-wise, we certainly could. We have programmed in walking paths in three directions around the site. The rear yard is really the only side of the project where we don't have any pedestrian pathways. So we can certainly take a look at that. I'd have to understand if we're allowed to, given we're crossing the main road.

Yeah, just my two cents on the positive connectivity pathway. But no, I appreciate that. That's the only question. Thank you.

Do you have a comment? I'll go to Commissioner Pearson.

I've got one additional question. I noticed on the technical site plan that there are two parcels, and I'm wondering if we're doing a lot line or a consolidation or a new map on that.

We are doing a lot line adjustment.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I don't see any further comments. Do we have a motion?

I move that we approve resolution number 264082 and 264083, the Conditional Use Permit and Park Plan for Fairchild Residential Project. I second.

Can we please set up the vote?

Chair Stark, the motion has passed unanimously. Great.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. So we can move on to item number three. And I'll open the public hearing and ask Director Frady to please introduce the item.

Thank you. This item is zoning text amendment to implement the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025, Senate Bill 346, and update short-term rental regulations. Presenting tonight is Code Enforcement Supervisor Eric Gonzalez, joined by Deputy Director Jesse Cardoza.

Wait, it was him, not me.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Eric Gonzalez, Code Enforcement Supervisor, and with me is Jesse Cardoza, Deputy Director of Community Development. We are pleased to present a proposed zoning tax amendment to implement the data gathering components of Senate Bill 346, the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act. As a baseline, Irvine has maintained a comprehensive citywide ban on short-term rentals under 30 days since Ordinance 18-05 was enacted in 2018. We have strengthened this in 2021 to explicitly ban cross-platform digital marketing. While we treat short-term rentals strictly as an unpermitted commercial lodging use, online hosting platforms shield active listings. This creates a severe data gap that limits our ability to conduct proactive enforcement. Let me show you what that gap looks like. Without direct data, non-compliant operators easily hide. They conceal physical addresses until a booking is paid, list the same property simultaneously across competing sites, and use generic stock photos to mask the home's identity. The real-world cost of this digital invasion is felt directly with our residents through a revolving door effect that chips away at the quiet residential character of our neighborhoods. To illustrate this, the scale of this issue, our team tracked 347 active short-term rental cases over the past year alone. As you can see from the geographic assessment, our primary hotspots are heavily concentrated near the Irvine Spectrum, the UCI Corridor, and the Irvine Business Complex. Investigating these currently demand massive manual complaint monitoring because we lack structured database. This brings us to our state-level tool, Senate Bill 346. Effective January 1st of this year, the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act grants cities explicit opt-in authority to legally compel corporate booking platforms to share baseline compliance data directly with local enforcement staff. Our strategy is very straightforward. Our primary action is data gathering. We are opting into Senate Bill 346 tools strictly to reinforce our existing city-wide ban. Conversely, we are intentionally omitting the state's optional tax collection and auditing provision. Because Irvine maintains an outright ban, we will not integrate revenue frameworks for unpermitted use, keeping our focus 100% on enforcement. With this update, hosting platforms will be required to provide critical monthly data directly to our team. This includes verified physical addresses to bypass complex investigative work, assessors' parcel numbers to tie listings to county ownership records, and active listing URLs to validate real-time availability. We want to be entirely clear. This amendment introduces no new restrictions, limits, or bans on local property owners. The citywide prohibition was firmly established eight years ago. This is strictly an operational upgrade to enforce our existing law. Furthermore, we're following a proven statewide path. Senate Bill 346 was heavily backed by the League of California Cities, and major jurisdictions like Los Angeles, Monterey County have already implemented identical rules. The lesson from those agencies is clear. Complaint-driven enforcement cannot keep pace with digital platforms. Systematic monthly data sharing is the only effective approach. To ensure robust deterrence, this text amendment formally updates Chapter 3-25 of the Irvine Zoning Ordinance to enhance our administrative citations. First, it establishes per-listing infractions, meaning each unique URL constitutes a separate violation, and daily compounding penalties. Finally, it adds a municipal definition for a unique listing. This allows our team to target and cite multiple separate advertisements published across competing platforms for the exact same physical address. Procedurally, the public hearing notice was published in the Irvine World News on June 25, 2026, and physically posted at the designated civic locations. As of tonight, zero public comments or objections have been received. Additionally, this item is categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines, and it carries zero risk or significant environmental impacts. IN CONCLUSION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-4086 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 00986138-PZC TO IMPLEMENT THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL FACILITATING ACT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. JESSE AND I ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, ERIC. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS?

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

Okay, thank you. I guess we will open up to commissioner questions. I put myself in the queue so I can go. Do we look at medium-term rentals, I guess over 30 days, the same as like a long-term rental?

No, per definition, that would not be considered short-term rental. Therefore, it's not prohibited.

So the tax structure would be set up the same way as if I rented for a year or two years, even if it was only for three months. When you find a property that's not complying, do you work with the HOA so they can also level penalties?

Most of the times, when the HOA is involved, they look for us for a faster result, just being that the residents are being impacted. And so we would definitely partnership with them, communicate ultimately to see if there's a local contact to kind of streamline the process in notifying the owner, but yes.

Okay, and then my last question is, How do you work to find properties that aren't listed on the major rental sites, but are listed in, say, like an app like WeChat, where it's just like a community-based trading of property?

Yes, in those difficult situations, we're relying heavily on the neighborhood partnership. Ultimately, they're the eyes and ears on the property, and so they're the first to be impacted and resulting following the complaint, build rapport with our officers, and kind of strategically respond to enforce that.

Okay, thanks. Those are all my questions. Commissioner Pearson?

I'd like to thank the chairman for asking the questions that I was going to ask. I do believe that we need to give the city, staff, code enforcement all the tools necessary to make sure that our neighborhoods are safe and do not have problems that have happened in other jurisdictions and cities. I think that this amendment is a very positive step forward and I support it tremendously.

Thank you, Commissioner Pearson. Commissioner Mansfield? Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

First and foremost, thank you for your presentation. I have a couple questions as I'm a relatively new commissioner. Obviously, as we've seen in the city of Newport recently with the issues with their short-term rental properties over the last holiday weekend, what is the current escalation of penalties?

Thank you so much for the question. Ultimately, after notification or issuance of a notice of violation, the first tier system of citations is $1,500, $3,000, and $4,500. Got it.

What is the path to increasing the penalty cost? I'm sorry? What is the path to increasing the cost of the penalties, like raising the fees?

Ultimately, the state has restricted all entities. We are at our maximum allowance for the state.

Okay, wonderful. Let's see. For right now, that would be all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mansfield. Commissioner Delacuzac?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I think this is a very important quality of life issue that we have to tackle. And I'm glad to see that you have the tools from the state to kind of uncover what's going on. Can you share any instances of how, like, Anything recently where residents impacted? I understand I heard before this meeting that sometimes these people go to the wrong house or something, and there's some safety concerns that you've heard personally?

Yeah, absolutely. It stems from whether just the high turnover, so the public nuisance aesthetics of the neighborhood, trash cans, junk and debris, just that element, as well as noise and impacts to the routine of the neighborhood, as well as more severe situations where there would be a guest, hypothetically Airbnb, trying to locate their short-term rental. They arrived at the middle of the night, they received a code and trying to locate the rental, and they're opening up the door, attempting to open up the door, and the owners of that home is very freaked out and trying to understand the situation. Of course, it's at the middle of the night, so they don't know too much what's going on. But it happens more often than not.

And our city is full of dedicated working families, and it's something they don't want to have to be inconvenienced with. You showed there was, on the data, about over 300 in the past year, instances where you have to respond. Had any of those instances required a police response, or you had to...

There absolutely have been. Code enforcement works very well with IPD and there's been multiple references that we receive from them as a result of responding to a party or other disturbing the peace or altercations that they respond to. They definitely are a way to pursue.

It sounds because of that response there's probably arrests been made, right? Correct. Good. I'm glad to hear that. I have no other questions, but I just want to thank you for bringing this attention to the public. I think we should be supporting our local businesses. We have great hotels here. We have workers who who work there to take care of our guests. They paid our taxes and to have people who follow the rules and help bring to our tax base to keep our parks open. I think a law like this will help continue that. So thank you for all your good work and making sure to keep our city safe and clean. Commissioner.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Grossman.

Thank you, Eric. It's a pleasure to see you here. I don't think we've had the pleasure of having you present before, so hopefully it's not been too difficult for all of us here. What I really want to understand is a little bit more about this ordinance. So you said it's a monthly reporting where you get from the platforms. So it just seems to me there might be a disconnect. You get the monthly report, but we're not capturing necessarily the people while they're while it's happening? Or how does the lag work if someone's using short-term rental on a Tuesday through a Thursday, but you're getting it 24 days later, the report? Can you just elaborate a little on how that works?

Thank you, Commissioner. And ultimately, as we continue to pursue this avenue and make those connections and streamline this path with those platforms, ultimately, it will be all of their listings active. So whether they're currently operating, the short-term rental ban is two parts, the operational aspect of it and the advertisement of it. So the thought and the hope is that all listings that are posted, whether they've been booked or not, will be immediately notified on our part at which we can make those notifications, hopefully before they get those units occupied.

So is the citation based on the listing or is it based on the occupancy?

Both. There's two code sections currently that we have. This amendment gives us the additional tool to mandate the data from the platforms directly. So in this instance, it will be for the advertisement violation.

Okay. And you said that if they would list them on multiple platforms, those would be separate violations per platform?

Yes. Okay.

That could add up rather quickly. That's quite got some teeth to it. Privacy and information protection of information is something that we're all concerned about these days. How will the city protect homeowners information received from these platforms? What safeguards will you have in place as information is exchanged electronically?

You can talk a little bit about your confidentiality measures that you use in code enforcement.

Thank you, Commissioner. Ultimately, code enforcement is privy to confidential information throughout, especially with the partnerships that we receive with IPD. We receive reports and what have you, and our avenues are connected and aligned with IPDs that we necessarily don't function as the other departments in that element.

And I think that I in no way want to impugn the integrity of any individuals. I believe they all are. But it would be something to look into from an IT and a systems-based point of view as you integrate this is to make sure that we have the proper safeguards from a technology point of view in place. And I understand that you're not the

Commissioner Grossman, they do. They have special programs in code enforcement that are only available and accessible to their team, similar to what the police department has. So there are confidentiality measures in place.

I actually was more thinking of the way it's coming from the platform to the city, not necessarily once it's inside the city, but it's a new integration, it's a new approach.

We'll keep that in mind.

Backdoor, essentially. OK. And then just one last question. Procedurally, does it work for a homeowner to receive the notification? Let's say a homeowner who doesn't want to continue to get escalating notices, how actually does that process work for them? Let me just be even more clear. We have a lot of these short-term rentals are people where the homeowner is not present, often maybe even international. How do we ensure that that notification process happens so that enforcement can take place properly?

Thank you. Our standard workflow for current enforcement in any situation is we do on-site inspection and attempt to make contact. And if no contact is made, we definitely leave our business cards, follow up with if it's a confirmed violation, a notice of violation. If their officer is unable to confirm the violation, then we'll issue a courtesy notice explaining the situation, request, and contact. In those unique situations where the owner is either overseas or the mailing address is kind of out of state or some delay that we can anticipate, that's where we work with associations and attempt to get the listed responsible parties' contacts, get some more information. We can definitely talk to the neighbors to understand what the dynamics of that home really looks like and how often it's occupied and other things.

Thank you. I appreciate that. That sounds like an excellent plan. I have nothing further.

Thanks, Commissioner Grossman. Commissioner Battia?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Eric, for the presentation. I wanted to know, so by definition of unique listing, that really does prevent an operator from advertising the same property across multiple platforms without additional consequences. Is that correct?

Okay. Okay.

Your answer is yes, right? Yes. Okay, got it. I'm curious to know, and this could be a question for staff, do we have data by districts on short-term rentals and which district has the most? Maybe categorize it by first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, or sixth.

Yes, our card enforcement team actually put together a really interesting dashboard that shows all of the different kinds of violations that we see in the city, one of which of the layers is short-term rentals. It's available for public viewing. It's on our website, and you can sort by district. Do you happen to know off the top of your head? No. Well, we can get that information for you and show you where that is available, and you can check it out.

Yeah, I live at the Great Park, and I kind of see a lot of that happening there. And how much, one last question, how much staff time has gone into, you know, currently identifying these listings that conceal, you know, their addresses? Has there been a lot of staff time involved in that?

Thank you, Commissioner. I don't have that data available, but I can definitely run that report and follow up.

Okay. Thank you very much, Eric. No further questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Mansfield?

Yes, sorry, I have a couple more questions. You brought up a really good point earlier. I have a good friend of mine who his business was accidentally broken into because there was an illegal Airbnb operating next door, next to his property. They came in late in the night, and I think our business owners, especially our homeowners and residents, have a vested interest in preventing these types of things from happening. Do we have a rough estimate of how many illegal Airbnbs are operating in the city?

I pulled a report. The last year is 346.

I'm sorry, my hearing's a little bad.

346.

346, okay. And then just confirming, we do have a database of where these people are and where they're operating them, right? Fantastic, thank you. That's all my questions.

Thank you. Vice Chair Lin?

Thank you, Chair. Just based on this discussion and what's come up, we veered a little off of the zoning text amendment, but I did have a question in terms of how we would go about placing a check-in time restriction, perhaps, just hearing about certain cases where perhaps someone who's renting a long-term rental goes to the wrong home if it's late at night. So if we can put a restriction on perhaps check-in time, I don't know what the process would be and if that's possible, but something to look into to possibly put like a check-in no later than this time restriction. Just thought that would be something worth considering.

Thank you, Vice Chair. For this specific amendment, we were really clear in the fact that it doesn't add additional. Right.

This is a side note.

Yes, but we can contemplate that in a future technical update.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much. That's it. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Vice Chair. Commissioner Mansfield?

Last question, I promise. Sorry, guys. Just for our viewers that may not be here in the building today, do we have a way for residents to anonymously report these non-compliant Airbnbs operating in their neighborhoods? And where can they find that?

Yes, they can go to the city's website, contact Code Enforcement Hotline, or email Code Enforcement at the city of Irvine.

Fantastic. Thank you again for your presentation.

I think that's everybody. I don't think I formally closed the public hearing, so I'm going to close the public hearing. And... Let's see if I have a motion and a second for this.

Chair, I'll move to approve this recommended zoning text amendment to implement the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act.

I second.

OK. Thank you. Could we please set up the vote?

Chair Stark, the motion has passed unanimously.

Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. So let's go to item four. I'll open the public hearing. Director Frady, could you please introduce the item?

Yes. Conditional use permit for a new Class 10 wireless communication facility camouflages a monopine tree located at 72 Fairbanks in Planning Area 35, Irvine Spectrum 2. Presenting is Senior Planner Sherman Jones, joined by Principal Planner Chris Chung.

Thank you, Director Frady. Good evening, Chair Stark and members of the Planning Commission. The project site is located within the Fairbanks Industrial Park at 72 Fairbanks and Planning Area 35, and that is Irvine Spectrum 2. The general plan designation is research industrial, and the zoning is 5.4 general industrial. Surrounding land uses include light industrial to the north, south, and east, and the Great Park Wildlife Corridor is to the west. And then further beyond the wildlife corridor is the Great Park neighborhoods. The purpose of the new cell tower is to enhance coverage in the surrounding areas, including serving homes in the Great Park neighborhoods. This is an elevation of the proposed Class 10 wireless facility. The existing building will be located behind the monopine at this vantage point. The monopine will be located within an approximately 700 square foot lease area. The tower will include the typical panel antennas, remote radio units, ray caps, and a microwave dish. In addition to the monopine tree, the equipment enclosure would include cabinets, a GPS antenna, and an emergency diesel generator The monopine will feature heavy textured faux pine bark on the entire pole. The antennas will be painted to match monopine foliage. And the equipment enclosure wall will have a smooth stucco finish and painted to match the existing building. The next few slides are going to be some photo simulations. The image on the left is the existing site condition. This is looking west from the site property. The image on the right shows the proposed wireless facility along with a new live pine tree. Again, the image on the left is the existing condition, and this is looking eastward from the edge of the property line. The image on the right shows the proposed monopine tree, the equipment enclosure, and two new live pine trees. And the last photo simulation that we have for you tonight is the existing condition on the left, and on the right is looking from the wildlife corridor, and you can again see the proposed wireless facility. The purpose of the alternative site analysis is to assess the feasibility of the alternative sites. The proposed project site is within the western portion of Planning Area 35, which is characterized by low-rise light industrial buildings. Based on the coverage maps, there are a few locations within the project vicinity that would accommodate the proposed facility meeting Verizon's coverage objectives. Placing the facility further to the north, south, or east would reduce the facility's ability to address the identified coverage gap and achieve the applicant's network objectives. Placing the facility further to the west is not feasible due to the presence of the wildlife corridor and Great Park neighborhood residences. The project site represents the most effective location for the facility to meet Verizon's coverage objectives while maintaining separation from the existing and proposed residential development. Additionally, and as detailed in your staff report, the Class 1 through 9 classifications are not viable configurations for the proposed facility. However, it's important to note that this facility is designed as a Class 4 or a co-location facility. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15303, that's a class three small structure. A courtesy notice was mailed to surrounding property owners and businesses in October of 2025. We received no comments at that time. For this public hearing, notices were also mailed and posted per city requirements and staff has not received any comments. The proposed project meets all city requirements. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 26-4085, as shown on the slide. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions that you might have. Again, thank you.

Thank you, Sherman. Would the applicant care to make any comments?

Good evening, Chair Stark, members of the Commission. Thank you, Sherman. Another solid staff report. Just for posterity, I wanted to introduce myself. I'm Peter Blyde with PlanCom, representing Verizon Wireless. We've been working in this area for a while. As you probably have heard, covering and achieving coverage within the Great Park has been an ongoing challenge for all the wireless carriers. I hope to be bringing you a couple of projects later this year that will actually be inside the park, which will be much more effective. But this is one of the sites that we've identified where we can improve coverage within the park from outside the park. So we've had a chance to work with the Irvine Company to develop what you've seen here tonight. and it meets or exceeds all of the standards of the City of Irvine, and so we appreciate the recommendation for approval, and we've read the staff report, all the draft conditions, and are prepared to accept them as they're written. So we'd like to formally request your approval, and thank you, and of course I'm happy to answer any questions.

You have been here a lot. We'll have to get you a punch card. Maybe like nine towers, the tenth one doesn't need a hearing. No, I'm kidding.

Oh yeah, write that down.

That was a joke. So let's open the public comments on this.

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'll go ahead and close the public hearing then and open it up for my commissioners. Does anyone have Commissioner Pearson?

Peter, I have one question. And it's similar to all the ones I ask you. You've got a diesel generator. Have you thought about using something that does not create the toxic fumes that periodically will be let out by that generator on a certain you know, scheduled operating time?

Well, to date diesel has proven to be the most reliable and available fuel source in the event of actual emergencies. That is the primary function of these. We don't use them other than in the event of an extensive power outage. Otherwise, we exercise them once a month for 15 minutes in the middle of the day, you know, a random Monday. type situation. So because of the availability of the fuel and the reliability of the machinery, that's what we typically use. There are cases where some sort of alternate fuel or other types of situations are applied. But this is the industry standard. And the FCC really likes these in terms of their reliability. They've proven over a long period of time. I understand the comment about emissions and the diesel engine obviously is less than ideal in a lot of situations, but sometimes it's still our best option.

I think what I was probably referring to was a propane type gas. I understand that natural gas would not work in this point, but I knew what your answer would be, so thank you.

Of course. If I could riff off of that, in a cold climate, you wouldn't use diesel, though, right? You would use propane.

I'm fortunate to live in the southwestern U.S. I don't have to worry about the cold. But I believe you are correct.

I used to live in Michigan, so I would see the propane, yeah. I think that's everything. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Grossman.

Just, Sherman, thank you very much. Just want to clarify, you did say that this is available for co-hosting if there was future need? Yes, that's correct. That's fantastic. I encourage us when we're doing this to make sure that we try and build that as much as possible to avoid the need for more and more towers. So thank you. You're welcome.

Okay, it looks like we have a motion by Commissioner Pearson and a second by Vice Chair Lin. So could we please set up the voting?

Chair Stark the motion has passed unanimously.

Wonderful, thank you. So let's move on to item number five. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and Director Frady, could you please introduce the item?

Thank you. This is conditional use permit for chiropractic, naturopathic, and therapeutic movement facility located at 17661 Cowan in Planning Area 36, Irvine Business Complex. Presenting tonight is Associate Planner Tiana De La Paz, joined by Planning Manager Alyssa Matthews.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR, AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THIS ITEM IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN UNDEFINED LAND USE AT 17661 COHEN. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 5.1 IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX MULTIUSE ZONING DISTRICT OF PLANNING AREA 36. 17661 COHEN IS ONE OF TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROJECT SITE. THESE BUILDINGS CONSIST OF A VARIETY OF TENANTS BUT ARE PRIMARILY COMPRISED OF OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE LAND USES. The proposed project is a request submitted by Yazi Hernandez of Identity Health to allow chiropractic, naturopathic, and therapeutic movement facility within the existing 25,000 square foot building that is outlined in purple. The facility will have various treatment rooms that are intended to provide specialized treatments based on individual client needs. The proposed use will operate with a one-on-one appointment-based system and will have up to nine employees on site, including four chiropractors, two naturopathic doctors, two movement coaches, and one administrative staff member. The applicant's operation schedule outlines that there will be no more than 16 clients on site at any one time. The proposed facility is considered an undefined land use due to the unique operations and specialty areas. While services are similar to medical office, alternative healthcare providers, and health club definitions in our code, the range of treatments and operational characteristics are not typical of the land use definitions. For example, medical office typically have medical professionals seeing patients on a 15-minute appointment interval, while the proposed facility will operate in an appointment-based system with appointments lasting approximately one hour. Similarly, alternative healthcare providers do not typically include the specialized treatments with amenities offered by this facility. Some examples of those amenities and treatments are listed on the screen. Finally, the one-on-one appointment-based schedule is different than the walk-in system typical of traditional health clubs. As such, the applicant has filed the conditional use permit to demonstrate compatibility with the site requirements and seek consideration as a unique land use. Staff has also evaluated the project against established development intensity values and parking regulations. Within planning area 36, the city limits the size and intensity of uses in order to limit potential negative impacts of traffic generated by each use. Because identity health is an undefined use, the applicant provided an operational schedule and staff determined the proposed facility has sufficient development intensity value budget to accommodate the proposed use. As for parking, there is no established parking ratio in the zoning ordinance for an undefined land use. The code allows undefined uses to be compared to similar uses or provide a parking study. The applicant provided a parking study that determined the maximum demand for parking is 25 spaces. The tenant space is allocated 97 spaces, so 25 is less intensive compared to the existing office and warehouse uses. As such, there is sufficient parking on site. Based on the results of the parking study, conditions of approval were added to the resolution to ensure compliance with operational schedule and measures, including a limitation of no more than 25 people on site at any one time. Since the project involves a new use within an existing building, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review. Additionally, on June 25th, 2026, notices of today's hearing were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site and posted at the project site and city designated locations. To date, staff has received no comments on this application. Staff has reviewed the proposed conditional use permit and determined it complies with the Irvine General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the conditional use permit for identity health. This concludes my presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you.

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

Good evening, Commissioner, staff. Tiana, thank you for the presentations. I have nothing to add to Tiana's presentation, but I'm open to any questions that you guys might have.

OK. Thank you. And then I'll open it to 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.

Thank you. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open up to the commissioners. Do any of my commissioners have questions? Commissioner Grossman.

Thank you, Tiana, for the presentation and thank you to the applicant. I just want to clarify a couple things for me is that The facility is unique because of the size. It's quite a large facility, and congratulations on the endeavor you're about to set on. The location is very straightforward, and I have no problem with that. The issue is this therapeutic movement phrase, because that could mean a lot of different things. That could be everything from one-on-one rehab Pilates, yoga, strength training. And it's kind of a vague word that I'm struggling with. Can you elaborate a little bit more on what the operations look like and why it's not a gym?

Right. So to clarify, our business is under three business models. So naturopathic medicine, personal training, which is what you're referring to, and then chiropractic care. And we're very separate from a gym because we offer only one-on-one appointments based on our facility, and there's no open gym or walk-ins at our facility.

So do you envision at any point having a class that would be led by a personal trainer for a 20-person yoga class, for example.

No, we do not intend that. It's only a one-on-one appointment-based, and that's why our business is so unique.

Okay. And in fact, that is one of the conditions, is that that would be prohibited. Am I correct?

Yes.

Okay. And then one, will this be a membership-based, or how will... How will this be set up? Yes, membership-based. Membership-based. Will you be having, like, will it have squat racks and things that you would be finding? And would people be dropping in to get their workout in before or after work?

No, nothing is open to the public in terms of you being able to walk in after work. Everything is one-on-one appointment. So with your personal trainer, and to answer your question, there will be anything available that you would find, as in a rack, a leg press, at your disposal.

Okay. All right. I think you've assaged my concerns about this. It's just the size of it, you have quite a big, it's going to be quite a big facility, and it kind of... could look like it, but you've assured me that it's not. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Pearson?

Again, I'd like to compliment you on the choice of location. Given my age, I'll probably want to have a membership there for probably everything that you'd offer. Going through your operational plan and your scheduling, I'm very confident that with the conditions of approval that this facility will run as you have indicated. And I don't believe that we would have any question as to the parking, as to the usage, the maximum number of employees. If there are complaints, I'm sure code enforcement will be knocking on your door. But other than that, I'm very pleased to have this type of business come into the city and offer the type of regimen that you're projecting. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Pearson. I just have one question for the applicant. Will the practitioners be employees or contractors? They'll be employees. Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Commissioner Mansfield?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here tonight. I just wanted to say I think this is a fantastic opportunity. As a veteran that's gone through chiropractic care due to disabilities acquired through service, I think this is fantastic. Thank you.

Commissioner Bhatia.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the applicant. I think it's also a great use, definitely needed in the community. I wanted to ask if there's going to be any signage modifications or building exterior changes aside from just tenant improvements?

As of right now, no. As of right now, there is not.

There's nothing, okay. No further questions, that's all.

Thank you, Commissioner Bhatia. I think that's everyone's comments. We have a motion made by Vice Chair Lin. Do we have a second? Second. Second, Commissioner Pearson. Could we please stop the voting?

Chair Stark, the motion has passed unanimously.

Excellent. Thank you so much. We'll move on to item number six. I'll open the public hearing. Director Frady, could you please introduce the item?

Thank you. Our last item is a major modification to the Objective Design Standards Manual. Presenting tonight is Senior Planner Tiffany Lin, joined by Planning Manager Alyssa Matthews.

Thank you, and good evening, members of the Planning Commission. Again, this last item before you this evening is the major modification to the Citywide Objective Design Standards. To provide some background on this item, the city's objective design standards was initially adopted in late 2024 to comply with state housing laws and contain objective measurable design criteria for qualifying multifamily residential projects. This manual includes a modification procedure to respond to the development community and the types of projects the city is seeing. Modification to the objective design standards can be processed either as a minor or major modification. The two modification procedures are distinguished by the extent of the changes, and minor modifications are primarily for changes to comply with state law, consistency with city policies and goals, and minor revisions to existing standards, all of which can be processed administratively with review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Major modifications are those that result in a significant addition or removal of standards, and these modifications are required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The current proposed major modification includes the adoption of Appendix A to the Objective Design Standards Manual, which establishes performance measures for by-right residential projects. These performance measures mirror standard conditions of approval recently adopted by the Planning Commission, but have been modified to be objective and able to be applied on a citywide basis for by-right residential projects. These requirements include plant submittal requirements and standards the city typically applies to development projects as part of the discretionary review process. Given that these by-right projects may completely bypass the discretionary review process, the performance measures ensure these requirements are still satisfied as part of the ministerial review that occurs through a building plan check. Changes also include revisions to other portions of the Objective Design Standards Manual for consistency purposes, as well as the introduction of required findings for major modifications to the document to ensure that major changes meet the intent of the Objective Design Standards Manual. In terms of environmental review, this project is exempt from CEQA analysis pursuant to the CEQA guidelines section listed in this slide, which is a common sense exemption. The list of performance measures were sent to various city divisions and departments for review, and their input has also been incorporated accordingly. Notice of the public hearing for this item was published on June 25th, and to date, staff has not received any public comments. Overall, the updated Objective 9 Standards Manual ensures standard city requirements are applied to by-right residential projects. Following the posting of this agenda item, staff identified a recommendation to modify one performance measure within Appendix A, performance measure 1.18. This performance measure is for subdivision requirement compliance, and the proposed modification would remove the second sentence in this measure, which allows for administrative approval. This modification is recommended because a specific state government code section regulating by-right residential development does allow the city to require subdivisions to adhere to the city's subdivision requirements, which require review and approval of the map at a public hearing. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the attached resolution, approving a major modification to the objective design standards, inclusive of the aforementioned modification to performance measure 1.18. And this concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for any questions.

Thank you for the presentation, Tiffany. 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.

Oh, great. Thank you. And I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and see if any of my fellow commissioners would like to speak. Vice Chair Lynn?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, staff. This is just another example of how wonderful our staff is in making sure that we make adjustments as needed. If the commissioners don't have any comments, which I don't see in the queue, I'd like to bring a motion to adopt the recommended action.

I'll second that.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. You got to be faster, Commissioner Grossman.

I want to echo, Tiffany, thank you very much for the presentation. I want to echo a little bit of what Commissioner Lynn said, but I think this is just, I think it's important to highlight this really preserves our local control in a way that is important. It builds on the history and the legacy of what we've been doing for decades and gives us that operational control. I think really importantly, and I'm sure our legal counsel would concur, This keeps our standards objective. They're applied to every single developer and every single applicant. And it provides clarity, which is what every business owner and business developer needs at the beginning of a project is clarity around it. And as far as I can tell, it doesn't appear to add any new burdens to what we're asking developers to do. It merely codifies that which has become standard operating procedure in the city. The one question I wanted to ask you is that obviously this is based upon our experience and our history and where we are to date. How do you envision that this appendix and would be used for future modifications and future changes, whether it's from technology, whether it's just from environmental, however we would, how would we be using this appendix going forward to continue to keep our city up to the codes and the standards that we are in the case of a buy-write?

So Appendix A is able to be modified consistent with the modification procedures in objective design standards. The provisions within Appendix A also, if there is a state law that supersedes the requirement in there, that would take control as well.

And to tear off that, Commissioner Grossman, you know, the performance measures mirror our standard conditions. And we really think that these two documents is kind of living documents that are always available to be updated and modified. So we will be keeping an eye on them moving forward and make changes as needed.

And just for clarification, if changes are needed as you're coming to us today, when we want to add conditions to it, does that come back to the Planning Commission? Is that done at the director level? How is that done?

I think depending on the nature of the changes and the level of change. As Tiffany mentioned, there's the difference between the major and the minor that we identify within the standard conditions and within the performance measures. That would be the determining factor on whether it would come back to this commission.

So major would return minor? Yes.

Okay.

All right. Nothing further, but thank you. Thank you for staff for looking out really here for the best interest of the city. Thank you.

So I see no further comments. We have a motion, a second. Could we please set up the voting?

Chair Stark, the motion has passed. Commissioner Mansfield has voted no. Sorry.

Thank you. So I guess that's it for tonight's meeting. So the next Planning Commission will be held on Thursday, August 6, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. It is now 6.55, and I declare the meeting of June 18, 2026 adjourned.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy birthday. Yeah.