Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 6 o'clock. So I am calling the Planning Commission of August 19, 2026 to order. Could we have a roll call, please? Chair Murphy? Here.

Bruce, would you lead us in the pledge, please?

Are there any additions or corrections to the agenda?

Okay, then we will move on to public communications. Is there anyone in the public who wishes to address something that is not on the agenda this evening? Is there anyone online?

Okay, we will move on to the consent calendar, which includes the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission, July 15th. Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are to be approved as presented. Disclosure of site visits and ex parte contacts. Brad?

Katrina. Just driven around. I didn't go on site again. Same here.

OK. In that case, we will turn it over to staff to review comments from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the addition of a spa.

So you added some additional information about parking, on-site parking?

Yeah, I appreciate that. And so I want to still talk about that. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

ask your question now or are you going to wait for the discussion?

Well, that was my question. I guess it's like, can we talk about this? Because it's still, for me, an issue. I mean, I love the project. Don't get me wrong. And I appreciate this going to Historic Preservation Commission, because I think it should have gone there in the first place, personally. So I appreciate that it went back to the Historic Preservation Commission. And I agree with some of the comments from the commissioners about the courtyard being a character defining feature and to keep the landscaping low. So that's my comment on that. But the parking, I know that the applicant's attor

CUP. And it's on this property. It's not incorporating the Oak or the El Roblar Hotel. So this is not a combined project, even though some of the analysis was done on the combined project. So because of that, if we're doing analysis and making modifications to our zoning ordinance, shared parking, I think to cover ourselves, for the city, to protect the city, we need to make sure that shared agreement, parking agreement, is put in place. That way, both parcels, both property owners, are acknowledging that they're having shared parking. If you just say, hey, it's just part of the CUP, then the

What, I mean, I'm sorry, El Roblar, I'm sorry. My brain is going back in time. But my point is, this is a CUP on these two APNs on 107 North Ventura has nothing to do with El Roblar, except we have these two reports that say, hey, it's a shared use and they're gonna share parking. I think that's not enough, so that's my point.

Did you say that the CUP had a shared agreement? no this one does not have a condition that requires a shared parking agreement it does not and that's what you're asking for okay if there are no other questions for staff i will open it up to public comment are there any people wishing to address the commission is there anyone online no we will close the public hearing

Did you say that the height of the fence is five feet?

And the height of the vegetation could conceivably get to what?

Thank you. Do you have any questions for Ginger?

Okay. At that point, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion. I suggest that we break this into two parts and deal with the Historical Preservation Commission's report recommendations and then separately discuss the other aspects of the SPA's request for zone changes and so on.

OK. Historical commission report. Do you have questions or comments?

I guess I didn't really picture that as being quite as solid a buffer as we're seeing presented because we do still want the public to be able to see in, presumably, and I think this in time is going to become almost completely blocked. So I'm just reacting to the buffer that was presented. I do think that a landscape buffer of some sort is still a good idea.

I guess this is a clarification question. So the gate is a five foot wrought iron see-through gate. Is there a five foot wrought iron see-through fence the entire way behind those plants?

So it's just plants and the five foot gate? Yeah. Okay. I'm okay with that.

A couple of things, actually, if I can go back a step just to understand exactly where we're at in sequencing here. So in the last meeting, the motion approved the application, correct? Okay, and then we have a shot at coming back and making a couple of adjustments to it, but we're not rewriting a brand new motion.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, I mean, my view is pretty simple. I think we need to tell them what to do and not how to do it. I'm less concerned about the design work and everything because there's a larger theme here. The what to do is please ensure the visibility and the consistency. to me the Planning Commission landed in a bunch of different places it was actually hard to tell like who's what is the what is the opinion or the Historical Commission sorry Preservation Commission what was hard for me on that is they they didn't hold a vote or give us really anything consistent so on one hand I appreciate

But the applicant did react to historic preservation commission because they came back with a new elevation So that's what we're reacting to really is the new elevation.

Yeah, and so to me to be specific inside of that elevation Hey, here's the elevation that everybody seems to agree is the relevant elevation how you accomplish that is up to you, you know within your design Standards of what you guys are doing.

No, that's what we do. That's that's our bailiwick is saying yes this is This design fits in character with the building, with town, with the situation. It's in scale. That is our bailiwick. So we have to look at it and say, yeah, yay or nay. And that's what we do. That's what we're here for.

The fine line, I guess, there is being the design police and allowing them to thematically do what they do, which I think has done pretty well and become kind of the de facto center of town. and so if we need to wrap a few things around that yes but i just think we have to be kind of careful with our guidance there not to turn into landscape designers here i agree with you a certain part of our purview is to say do this not that relative to you know plant work and the landscaping plan but um uh to me they should have some a little bit of an envelope to determine. Say, for instance, it's going

I think we're past that, though. I think we kind of gave our comments. I mean, we're not past it if we don't want to be. But I think the way the process has gone, in my mind, were past that point. So we sent it back to Historic Preservation Commission. They all commented. They weren't 100% in line. But the applicant went back, made some changes, and presented a new elevation. So I think that's what we're reacting to. So we're looking at the comments from HPC. We're looking at the elevation. And we're determining that, yes, They are, you know, they're either responding to HPC comments or not. A

Yeah, yeah. I think we're in agreement on that.

Any other comments on the Historical Preservation Commission recommendations?

I'm... I'm not real pleased with trying to approve something on a distant screen that I can't really see that well. It appeared to me to be very blocking of the view into that courtyard and as such I would hope that they would consider the kinds of plants that they plan to use. I certainly like what they've done at the hotel so I trust that they could come up with something That would be a little less like a fence. I mean that landscaping plan looks like a green fence and so that's My comment on it Well, it's kind of hard to tell if it's gonna grow I

Okay, thank you. Yes, as I read the HPC comments, nearly everyone seems to expect a landscaping buffer, and I think that that's kind of what our commission has agreed to. So, perhaps we could go on to the of the zoning changes that are, no?

Could you explain again, Ginger, the county, the addition to the land use that the county would have recorded that would be simpler than a shared agreement?

No, it doesn't. It doesn't satisfy me because I'm, they're dependent on the parking being shared. This project is being dependent. Yes. on another property. So they're being dependent on an offsite property. So when they're dependent on an offsite property, you need an agreement so that offsite property is onboard and it's recorded on that parcel as well. So without that, The Oaks can say, or Roblar can say, we don't want to do it anymore. We don't want to share parking anymore. We don't want any part of it. But it behooves us to do that. It behooves them not to have it. So I don't understand

I understand. I like the word welcoming in your description.

Good. I really like that concept. I just didn't get that from the picture that I saw.

I agree and I think that you are certainly well within what the Historic Preservation Commission comments were and with what our commission is saying here and now so I have no problems putting this forth to the City Council with our recommendation

Yeah, Jeremy, Commissioner Stewart here. From my perspective, the main thing for you to keep in mind is all of the Preservation Commission people agreed there needed to be a fence. The issue they couldn't agree on is how see-through is it? That's really what it came down to in the most simple terms. We want a fence, but we don't know how see-through it needs to be. So in that regard, I think some of what you've shown looked like it blocked a lot. You could probably do less there. But I think if you understand that on a high level, there are enough talented people in the group to make that happ

And function like a fence, function like a fence and look like a screen.

And then, Jeremy, I have a question, if we could, just jumping to the parking issue. Is it intended that El Roblar and the spa would have a parking contract between them, an agreement between them?

That might be one condition along the lines of what you were saying. Those two parties.

Well, but they're different entities and I think we've got to bring in the kind of protection that Katrina's talking about. So those two parties, I don't know, Jeremy, whether they're different entities, but I don't think it really matters. They're actually probably two different operations at some point. That's the way they're described here anyways. But maybe between those two parties, there is a shared parking agreement that is part of the conditions for this. And the two parties are the 107 property and El Roblar. And then if there is a change to that in the future along the lines of some

Yeah, because really the, here's the, Here's the loophole, you know, a little bit for you guys, Jeremy. El Roblar is not really applying for this. The spa is, but the spa is using El Roblar's parking. So that's, I think, the heart of Katrina and some of the other people who've talked about their concern. As El Roblar, you're not really here doing anything. You're asking for the spa. As an organization or as an operation, but you're telling us you're going to use another operations Parking so we just have to link those two knowing similar owners cap tables, whatever it is. I

It's a service. It's like an SLA. It's a service-level agreement where... El Roblar is providing a service of the service of parking air quotes. Yeah the service of parking so it's a service level agreement between the two parties and

I agree with you, Ginger. I think that we are imposing an additional burden on this project that is not really necessary. But if the rest of the commission feels that you do need an agreement, I think we need to do that now.

I do, because they're relying on another property. The El Roblar APN is not mentioned here. The El Roblar address is not mentioned in this project description. El Roblar stands on its own, and so does this. So the only reason this has anything to do with El Roblar, because of the project description, only saying what parcel numbers are at stake here that we're looking at, is the parking agreement, or not the parking agreement, the parking study, the transportation study. traffic analysis there we go so the traffic analysis in parking is based on two properties which in this project description

It's very simple and it's done all the time.

You can actually look at this through a really simple lens. Does El Roblar have a burden here? In your guys' eyes? Does El Roblar have a burden here?

What do you mean? Yeah, does Elroblar have a burden to the spa?

It does have a burden. It's providing it with parking. So it has a burden, and 107 gets a benefit. And that's why I think we need a contract, just a simple shared parking agreement, to Katrina's point, that links those two. Because if that burden and benefit change, okay and we do you know we i think everybody is in support of this and everybody feels like it's it's going to be a good project but i think we do owe it to the community to say hey we put a little stop in the door because things change but when they change it'll come back to us anyway And it should in that new party at that new ti

I guess I just don't understand what this agreement is going to add to the requirement that a new owner would have to come back.

What it adds is what Katrina said. It adds that a party that is not at the table here in their application, a party that is not at the table is going to deliver a benefit to the thing we are being asked to approve. I have trouble with the fact that we have an attorney here while we're all amateur law doing this.

Can you help me understand why a single owner needs to have an agreement with himself?

Yeah, to me it's a convenience that the parties are essentially the same, and I don't see it as a burden. I see it as just closing a loop for the community members who've asked. And things change. Things happen. Parties that own different properties do evolve and change.

That's a great way of looking at it. This is just another external parking contractor. They happen to have ownership in it, but it is another external parking contractor. You have convinced me.

Well, I think at the heart of it, it's a services agreement. And that is that El Roblar will provide the service of parking spaces, okay, to it. And I would actually limit the scope, like this is a one pager service. to me that you're going to deliver you know lucas and the city could probably guide you on this question of the exact number and you know the different things about the different lots here and and what happens to the little house with a couple of parking spaces and so on but to me this is a one a one pager and you know maybe maybe the you know if you guys don't want to go hard wit

I just think it's a service level agreement. It's boilerplate. Any attorney's going to have this sitting in their file somewhere that's an SLA, and it's pretty boilerplate, and then it identifies the service you're providing, which is 82 spots. And you're done.

Well, again, we have an attorney here, so I don't want to go too far, but to me it can be radically simple. You're providing the service of parking spaces, 82 spaces, everything else is irrelevant, because when those two parties, if for any reason they were no longer existing, those two parties, the contract would be void. So there's some boilerplate termination language or something like that.

Jeremy, those aren't, those aren't called to question here, just a parking. So there may be a bunch of other stuff you do. This is just a parking question to me.

if the hotel if we have another pandemic and the hotel goes out of business um the hotel can say pack sand i am not providing parking to anybody because i'm just not i'm gonna change the use and i'm gonna do something else so that's the problem that's the problem so yeah it's the hotel has to agree to share that parking because the spa is depending on it. So that's the agreement. I think the particulars can be discussed among the attorneys, but the hotel has to accept that responsibility And they're not named in this CUP. So if you want to go through the process again and couple El Roblar Hote

Yeah, this goes back to my question so we have already approved So do we need a new motion here to add a parking agreement between the two I

we would put something together that encompasses that the smart philosophy that yeah that's my that's my recommendation and you know just as a fellow hotelier the only closing comment and I do think if we can stay out of the motion so you you guys know this better than I do what's the average hold period for a hotel for a private equity group it's five to seven years So it's not super hypothetical. We know you guys, we know you love it. We know Eric and everybody Engage wants to build a landmark thing. Awesome, 100% for it. But the fact remains the average hold period for a hotel investment is

So does somebody want to? I'm looking at Katrina.

Where's the absent guy? Yeah, we need him.

here's the recommendation that the Planning Commission I make a motion that the Planning Commission accept the Historic Preservation Commission comments from their regularly scheduled meeting of August 13th and including the elevation that was presented today by the applicant having that forwarded to the City Council And also adding that a shared parking agreement should be done per the traffic analysis and parking analysis for the project tied with El Roblar Hotel. the form to be the form of that agreement to be approved by city attorney and Forward that recommendation to City Council Is ther

We are ready for a roll call Sherry. I We are done we have moved this on to the City Council's plate Okay, the next item is future agenda items. Yes. Do we have,

I'm a process person, but it's important for transparency and equal and fairness. But the zone clearance is ministerial. So although the code, doesn't the code talk about discretionary? So it would seem to me that since the zone clearance is ministerial, that that would be done on its own, and any discretionary projects, like if this was a two-story DRP, then it would come before us, combined with a tree permit and a map and anything else. But the fact that it's ministerial that is ministerial on its own. It shouldn't come to us because we're discretionary.

I'm not just talking about this one in particular. I'm just saying, like, something's ministerial, it's ministerial, it's ministerial. Like, it's not discretionary, so we shouldn't have to see it. Like, we shouldn't see it. I think it's erroneous for it to come here.

Yeah, but I'm just saying, when you look into it, whether it says if it's discretionary or not, I'm still thinking something that's ministerial is, by definition, something that is not discretionary, so it shouldn't have to go to us. That's all I'm saying.

OK. Next, we have the director's report. Do you have anything to add?

Is that correct? I thought it was August. I think they're dark in August. Yeah, they're dark in August. Okay.

Before, okay. I can't talk, I can't talk in detail. The appeal is.

That's as far as I, that's as far as I want to go. The action that we took was to approve the ability to apply for a different liquor license. The, so is that the piece that's being appealed? Yes. Okay.

So it's going straight off to the city council. Good luck. And with that, I will adjourn the meeting at 7.25.