Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay I think it's about 05:29 and a half so at this time I'd like to call to order the 12/04/2025 regular meeting of the city of Irvine's planning commission. Madam secretary would you please call roll.

Commissioner Stark.

Present.

Commissioner Lynn. Here. Commissioner Grossman is absent this evening. Commissioner Delacusack.

Here.

Vice chair Batya.

Present.

Chair Pearson. Present. We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. At this time, I'd like Ernest to go ahead and lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

Ready. 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.

At this time, I'd like to open up the opportunity for the public to make comments on any general issue that is not identified in the public hearings tonight. Madam secretary, do we have anybody wanting to speak?

If anyone on Zoom wishes to speak, now is the time to raise your hand. We will take speakers in the chamber first. Chair Pearson we do not have any public comments on non agendized items.

Very good, thank you very much. Madam director do we have any introductions tonight?

No introductions chair.

Do we have any staff reports?

No staff reports.

Very good. Are there any announcements, committee reports or commission reports tonight? I see shaking heads none, so I'll move on at this time. Do we have any deletions or additions to our agenda?

None tonight.

At this time we have the consent calendar in front of us. This is only going to be an item for discussion if one of the commission members wants to pull the item. We have two items, the minutes and the proposed meeting schedule. I'll ask our secretary if 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 consent calendar items.

Very good. Then let's address the minutes. Item number one, any comments from our my fellow commissioners? Then I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the 11/06/2025 meeting. I second.

Then let's vote. All in favor?

Chair Pearson, the motion to pass the consent calendar items has passed unanimously.

Thank you very much. Item number two is our 2026 proposed meeting schedule. Are there any comments or disagreement with what is being proposed? It appears to be a consent that this schedule calendar is going to be accepted. Do I have a motion to approve it?

A motion to approve the proposed meeting schedule.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor.

Chair Pearson the motion has passed unanimously.

Thank you. At this time we will move into the public hearings. Item number three is the Irvine Zoning Ordinance technical update. Madam director, would you introduce this? I will open the public hearing at this time.

Thank you, Chair. As stated, this is the Irvine Zoning Ordinance technical update. Presenting is Principal Planner Nick Maloney joined by Acting Planning Manager Ann Wu.

Very good. Dick let's go ahead and proceed.

Thank you. Good evening members of the planning commission. The item before you is a citywide zoning ordinance and municipal code technical update. This update is brought forward periodically to amend the Irvine zoning ordinance the proposed update focuses on a number of housing and procedural updates to implement housing element requirements for compliance with state housing law. Update the irvine objective design standards.

Update the irvine business complex overlay district and the residential and residential mixed use overlay district requirements streamline and clarify procedures as well as to address any inconsistencies within the zoning ordinance as well as with the municipal code will go over each of these items in more detail over the next few slides. The first item introduces a new chapter to the zoning ordinance chapter two dash four one special housing regulations which focuses on the state's requirements pertaining to no net loss this chapter references state laws which prohibit the city from taking any action which reduces residential capacity without restoring that capacity elsewhere and this applies both to actions which amend the zoning ordinance zoning map as well as to actions which amend or propose development on any housing inventory sites it will require findings for any development proposed on housing element sites and to the extent permissible by state law would require applicants to assist and reimburse the city for associated compliance efforts. Next the update revises the objective design standards contained in chapter three dash one eight of the zoning ordinance and the existing objective design standards manual these revisions will include lowering the density threshold for applicability from the current 30 dwelling units per acre to 15 dwelling units per acre as well as refining design criteria based on implementation experience on recent development projects as well as applicant feedback and clarify existing requirements it will also establish the submission of a checklist to assist with project review which is contained within the objective design standards manual.

Next the item aims to make a number of amendments to planning Area 36 otherwise known as the Irvine Business Complex or Ibc. The update will remove the obsolete Irvine Business Complex Overlay District formerly contained in chapter five dash eight and transfer key applicable development standards within that chapter into chapter nine dash three six which regulates planning area 36 additional updates are included in other areas of the zoning ordinance and municipal code to ensure overall consistency and will eliminate outdated references. Next continuing with planning area 36 this update clarifies the planning commission's role in the review and responsibilities related to the transfer of development rights and will also remove the average daily trip waiver provisions for planning area 36 which is an existing redundant procedure that is no longer necessary additionally the changes to the residential and residential mixed use overlay district would provide additional compatibility standards and provide reference to required mitigation measures included in chapter nine dash three six and five dash nine. Pursuant to sequel or the California environmental quality act the project is exempt from further environmental how analysis under sequel guidelines section one five zero six one b three as the update does not directly result in development notice of tonight's hearing was published in the o c register on November 13 and posted at city designated locations as of tonight's hearing city staff has not received any public comments on the item overall the zoning technical update introduces needed regulations strengthens internal consistency updates obsolete sections of the code and ensures alignment with state housing law therefore staff recommends the planning commission adopt the attached resolutions recommending city council approval of zone changes zero zero nine six four one nine six dash p z c and zero zero nine six nine four three four dash p z c that concludes staff presentation we're available to answer any questions thank you

Thank you very much Nick and Anne for the presentation. Since the city is essentially the initiator and applicant creating this cleanup, I will pass on asking any applicant questions and I will go and ask our secretary if we have any public comments on this staff recommended zone changing.

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.

Very good, thank you. Then I will go to my fellow commissioners and starting with Jeff, if there's any questions or comments related to this proposed recommendation.

I have no questions. Thank you.

Very good. Then I'll go down to Brenda.

No questions. Just great job to staff as always keeping current

and updated with everything. So thank you.

Thank you. Arnes.

I just have one question for staff, but first thank you for presenting this item. The only question I have is with the change of to 15 units per acre instead of 30, what is the feedback from our stakeholders here at the city and how that would mainly increase our development or is it

no change you think? There would be no change. We haven't received feedback for or against it.

Thank That's all I have.

Thank you Arnes. Raj?

No questions. I feel like this is more than just a clerical update. I applaud the city because of the award winning 2045 general plan and it's going towards the roadmap that we're setting forth. I appreciate that. No questions though. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to compliment the city on this cleanup item. It's bringing ourselves into compliance with state law. And I guess that's appropriate. I don't see any questions on any of the items.

I'm glad that we've eliminated some of the duplications and some of the areas in which we no longer need some of the regulations in the ordinance. And I would, at this time, if there's no other comments or questions to staff, close the public hearing and open for discussion or open for a motion to approve.

I'd like to move to adopt staff's recommended action.

Motion do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second for the adoption of the zoning ordinance technical update. Let's go ahead and vote.

Chair Pearson the motion has passed unanimously.

Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you Nick and Anne for the presentation again and we'll go into item number four on our agenda, open the public hearing and allow director Freddy to introduce the item.

Thank you chair. The next item is a fair market value appraisal for land within the residential and residential mixed use overlay of the Irvine business complex. We need one minute to get our planner in here, if you don't mind. There we go. Presenting tonight is senior planner Eric Martin joined by principal planner Chris Chung.

Welcome Eric.

Thank you. Thank you and good evening. As Stephanie mentioned tonight I'll be presenting a business item for the proposed fair market value land appraisal for land within the residentomresidential mixed use overlay of the IBC. I'll start by providing an overview of what's been submitted and why this item is before the commission tonight. Staff is currently reviewing several new residential projects at the IBC, all of which include park plan applications.

And since the previous fair market value appraisal for the IBC expired in June 2024, the city received a new appraisal to determine park planning values for these upcoming projects. Oh okay. I just want to make sure that it was presenting.

We're having technical difficulties with the screens but we can just verbally receive the report. Thank you.

The appraisal was prepared by CBRE and considers non residential land within the residential and residential mixed use overlay or RMU for short of the IBC and the appraisal focuses on non residential land because it's typically less expensive and is the type of property the city would consider purchasing for future parks. This also helps preserve residential land for housing as we work toward meeting state housing requirements. Tonight, the commission is considering this item due to a requirement within the city's park standards manual which requires that the planning commission review and approve the appraisal upon a recommendation from the community and library services commission. And the community and Library Services Commission did consider this and they did recommend that the Planning Commission approve the appraisal at their meeting. The purpose of the appraisal originates from state law, which enables cities to require dedication of parkland and or payment of in lieu fees.

Irvine implements this through our general plan and subdivision ordinance, which specifies that the minimum acreage of parkland for new development should total five acres of parkland for every 1,000 future residents. Developers can satisfy this requirement through a combination of the approaches listed here, providing on-site park improvements and amenities, or paying in lieu fees. When an applicant chooses an option other than the sole dedication of land, the Irvine Municipal Code requires preparation of an appraisal to determine the fair market value of land within their project. Which then brings us to how that determined fair market value or FNV for short is used and on this slide I'll walk through the three main steps of that process. Tonight the commission is initiating the first step by considering and potentially adopting a new FNV value.

This year the proposed value is $4,500,000 and this represents the cost of purchasing non resident land within the RMU of the IBC. If adopted, the next step would be to use that value to calculate park obligations depending on the proposed project. When a developer decides not to dedicate any park land, staff would identify the project's minimum acreage requirement, then take that acreage and multiply it by the fair market value, which then results in the in lieu fee amount the applicant would pay. As mentioned, however, a developer does not have to either choose to dedicate or not dedicate, and can instead use a combination of dedications, on-site improvements or amenities, and also in lieu fees. And when they choose to provide on-site improvements, they can receive credit for those improvements.

And in that scenario, the FMB value is then used to calculate the land equivalent value for these improvements. And that brings us to the final process, which is reviewing the park plan, which would contain these components, including the FMV based calculations as well as the identification and depiction of land dedication or on-site recreational improvements. In terms of how the city obtained the appraisal, the city consulted with CBRE who have prepared past FMV appraisals for the IBC. Their staff of MAI certified appraisers employed the same methodology used in prior years to ensure that it was prepared in accordance with the city's park and park facility standards as well as the national uniform standards of professional appraisal practice. If adopted, the dollar amount per acre of subdivided non residential land would be valid for one year and would be applicable to properties within the RMU of the IBC.

This slide gives a quick overview of how fair market values in the IBC have changed over the past decade. Overall, the trend has been upward with adjustments caused by shifts in the market and comparable land sales. In the last few years, values have been influenced by inflation beginning in 2022, higher interest rates, slower job growth and some stress in the banking system. And most recently, the global trade uncertainty and tariffs within the economy have also affected market conditions. But despite these conditions, this year's appraisal increased the F and B by $300,000 to a total of 4,500,000 per acre.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the F and B appraisal for the land within the IBC residential residential mixed use overlay. And with that, that concludes staff's presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Pardon me. Thank you Eric. Chris, since this is another initiated city requirement by code, I will ask if there are any public comments on this issue.

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

Very good. Then at this time I will ask my fellow commissioners for their comments and questions to staff. Start with Raj.

Thank you for that and thank you for staff for the presentation. I think the evaluation moving upwards is a clear sign that there's a more profitable pathway for the IBC projects particularly those residential conversions from the commercial side of things. I had a question regarding the factors involved. Are they just strictly on interest rates? Are they on multifamily demand? What does CBRE actually look at when it comes to making that analysis?

I believe CBRE in their report primarily focused on comparable land sales over the past several years, primarily the IDC. I see, okay. But different market factors have made, can influence as Eric mentioned in his presentation about inflation, other like tariffs, unforeseen circumstances,

but primarily comparable land sales. Got it. Okay. And one last question. If the property owner believes that their land value is materially different than what is the appraised value, is there a process for submitting anything, supplemental information or requesting a change?

Yes, the property owner or an applicant can submit an appraisal if they wish, they did not want to use the currently adopted appraisal. So that is an option for them.

Okay, perfect. Thank you Noah for the questions.

Thank you very much. Raj Arnes.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, staff, for the land appraisal presentation. I think it's fair that staff be able to share how many projects, residential projects are in the IBC pipeline at this time?

I believe there are approximately six that are pending right now.

Thank you. That's all I have.

Brenda? No questions. Jeff?

Thank you Chair. Thank you for the presentation. So this wouldn't cover any property in IBC that doesn't have a residential mixed use overlay? Like,

I think

we had areas that were warehouses?

This would Go ahead. Yeah, this appraisal would cover all properties within the focus area one of the RRMU Overlay District.

Okay. And how do we handle this scenario in other parts of the city? Do we, does applicant order a one off appraisal?

There's a couple options. Yes, the applicant if they believe an existing appraisal that we have is not accurate anymore, they're free to order their own appraisal. We do have a number of existing appraisals for various other planning areas in the city. If they expire, there's another way to accelerate the land value by the construction cost index. It's a factor we multiply that initial appraisal by to raise the cost to current the current year. That's another option.

And then do we not approve those appraisals or just the IBC one?

If we use the CCI accelerator, you wouldn't see it. It's just a process is laid out in the parks manual. But if an applicant did ask for a new appraisal in another planning area, that would come through the same process.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff. I appreciate that. Finally question is it appears that the appraisal was based upon five different comps. Is that correct?

I believe there were six if I remember correctly. But five or six, yes, correct.

Okay. So do you think that is a representative indication of what the land values are?

Within the area there just haven't been a lot of activity for properties of comparable that would be could be part of this analysis. So there's just not a lot within the past several years. So CBR would be able to be just working with what data that's available and then conducting the analysis.

But Chair, do want to voice that we do. We are confident in the work that CBRE has done for us. They are the city's hired consultant. So they've been vetted through the city process.

Okay. Okay. Know the range was from 103 up to a 150, dollars $160 a square foot and we've arrived at $103 at the low end of those comps I'm presuming that there were sufficient reasons for not using a higher value probably due to location and street frontage and various things and that the actual comp is averaged over the entire focus area one not specific you know high value corners.

That's correct. There were adjustments that were considered for example if they were at the dependence on when the property was sold if it was sold during a stronger market the adjustments would have been considered to either increase or decrease that value so that it's fair and equal across the board in the analysis. So there are other factors that such as you mentioned the frontage, if it has multiple street frontages, if there were entitlements in place, etcetera. So that was part of the analysis.

Okay. Thank you, Chris. I have no further questions. Are there any other comments or questions? Then at this time I will close the public hearing and accept any discussion or motion to approve the land values that are indicated on the fair market value appraisal.

Do I hear a motion or a comment?

Here I'll move to adopt the staff's recommended action.

We have a motion, do we have a second? Second. I'm not sure which one was first. That was a tie. Okay, we've got a motion and a second then let's vote on this.

Chair Pearson, the motion has passed unanimously.

Very good. It appears that that is the last item on our public hearings. Unless there is further business that's going to come before us Madame Director, then I will look at your nods saying no.

That's it for tonight.

Okay and we will adjourn this meeting until our next planning commission meeting which will be the January

January 15 yes

yes the January 15 happy holidays and happy new years

and I wish everybody that could be online everybody in the staff and in the gallery a happy holiday season, Christmas, Hanukkah and all the other ones, I better be careful. Happy New Year, thank you, we're adjourned.