Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Do we want to check mics? Good evening.

How are you doing? Good.

Good to see you. Glad to have you here.

All right, good evening. We are approaching our time here at 5.30. We have maybe one minute. Let's see if we have any other commissioners coming. Are we, all three, are we confirmed this is our full? I can wait a minute.

I was not aware of anyone else being absent, so maybe if we wait a minute. All right.

We'll give one more minute, and then I'll get started here. And I can make sure I go in.

Thank you.

We have quorum, so we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you, Commissioner Comden. All right. I will call this meeting to order. Today is Wednesday, March the 18th, at this time of 5.32. This is a special meeting of the City of Ventura Planning Commission. As we begin, the City of Ventura acknowledges that we are gathered on unceded Chumash land. The full text of the City Council adopted Chumash land acknowledgement is available at the city's website.

Feels like a lot of...

noise on the mic, but we'll keep moving on. Mr. Clerk, may we please have roll call?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCarty?

Here.

Commissioner Winnegar is absent. Commissioner Lagerquist?

Here.

Commissioner Abbey? Here. Commissioner Comden? Here. Vice Chair Zucker is absent. And Chair Abusa?

Here.

Five members are present. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. We will proceed into our public communication. All right. Nice to see you, Vice Chair Zucker.

All right, we do have a quorum and we will proceed.

We now move on to the public communications portion of the meeting. Members of the public may address the commission on matters not on tonight's agenda that are within the commission's jurisdiction. The commission cannot take action on items not listed on the agenda.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any public speakers for topics not on tonight's agenda?

Thank you, Chair. For general public comment, we don't have any speakers.

Thank you. We will move on to our consent items. On consent tonight, we have before us the approval of the minutes from January 14, 2026, and January 28, 2026 meetings. Are there any questions or comments from the commission on the consent items? Great. Seeing as there are none, I entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar.

I'll move to approve.

Thank you.

I'll second.

Okay.

To approve the consent items, the minutes, Commissioner McCarty?

Abstain.

Commissioner Winnegar is absent. Commissioner Lagerquist? Yes. Commissioner Abbey? Yes. Commissioner Comden?

Yes. Vice Chair Zucker?

Abstain. Chair Boussa?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, thank you. We will now move on to our public hearing items for the night. First on the agenda, project 24-0735, a request for major design review, lot line adjustment, warrant and exception to allow the development of a four-story medical office building at 2819 East Main Street located in the urban center T52 zone of the Midtown Corridors Development Code. The warrant would allow an increase in the fourth floor height ratio from 75% to 100% and the exception would allow a reduced rear yard setback. The site is identified as APN 077-0-022-120 and 160. The California Environmental Quality Act determination is categorically exempt. Senior Planner Walter. Ready for you to set who we have up tonight.

You basically explained the project for me. Thank you. We can proceed to the next slide since we kind of went over that. As noted, the subject property is located in Midtown Ventura, just south of the Community Memorial Hospital complex at the corner of East Main Street and Cabrillo Drive. Next slide, please. Above are photos of the area surrounding the existing site. The area is primarily commercial businesses of retail, banking, and medical services. Next slide.

Subject property is located in the Midtown Corridor's code.

Specifically, the lot is zoned for T52 uses within the shopfront overlay, which recommends development for mixed use and commercial buildings that are near the sidewalk and which activate pedestrian pathways. The zone allows for urban mixed-use up to six stories near the Five Points area of Midtown and the Community Memorial Hospital. The proposed four-story medical office building fits the building and furnished types required by this zone. Next slide. Above is a site plan showing the location of where the building would be located with the current aerial image, and to the right is the proposed site plan showing the outline of the proposed four-story medical office building. Next slide, please. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, this project went to two design review committee meetings where comments were made at the first one in December of 2025, where the DRC recommended that the applicant explore the possibility of incorporating art installations on the building, additional building articulation, interior downspouts and dark sky compliant lighting, explore opportunities for window articulation, consider paving enhancements, and evaluate alternative planting plans. The applicant responded to all said items, including updated elevation showing improved pavers, more context for the planting around the building, and including in the resolution conditions pertaining to dark sky compliant lighting, interior downspouts, and in the plan set, including window articulation. The project returned to the design review committee in February of 2026, where it was unanimously recommended for approval to the planning commission. Next slide, please. With that, above is the south elevation facing East Main Street. This elevation, in compliance with T52 zoning, has a pedestrian level entrance facing the street. Go to the next slide, please. That's all good. The T5-2 zone also requires different uses per floor level. As proposed, the bottom floor would be retail space, shown above in blue, while the top three floors, shown in green, would be office space, bringing the building into compliance with T5-2 zoning. The building from the bottom of the building from the street level to the top of the roof would be 57 feet, and 70 feet would be from the height of the equipment screening to the ground level. In comparison to adjacent buildings, specifically the parking garage behind it, the parking garage is 55 feet from the parapet to the garage, and the tower is 64 feet. Next slide. Above is the south elevation facing East Main Street. Next slide.

Here you can see the patient drop off area located at the bottom area outlined in red.

This elevation is where the primary entrance will be and will feature a crosswalk linking the building's entrance to the rear parking garage where there is existing vehicular parking, bicycle parking, as well as ADA accessible parking. Next slide. Above is a west elevation facing campus drive with the side door entrance. And above is the east elevation facing 2833 East Main Street. The area outlined in red, next slide, please, shows the potential area for mural and artwork area. And this area also shows a privacy wall with no windows in order to ensure patient privacy for the building. Next slide, please. Above is a color material board for the medical office building as well as a rendering of the building. The building is composed of various stone veneer, glass, and sand-colored finishes that allow the building to match with various buildings across the community memorial hospital complex. Additionally, as shown in the color rendering, is showing how the siding and glass materials would look. Next slide, please. Above is a rendering of the proposed building facing to the east, showing the corner of Cabrillo and Main Street. Next slide, please. Above is a site plan showing the location and drop-off area with the enhanced pairing, as well as the entry points from the front of the building, the side of the building, and the rear of the building. The presumed inpatient drop-off area is noted with keynote number two and outlined in red to the right side of the screen. Next slide, please. project submitted a transportation assessment study by llg engineers dated from march 2025 to evaluate the traffic impacts and identify mitigation traffic impacts will be mitigated through payment of traffic mitigation fees and the project generates a requirement of 171 parking spaces and after applying an 84 space credit from previous development 87 spaces will be needed to will be needed to allocate for from the existing parking structure which has the sufficient reserve capacity of these required spaces four of which must be accessible parking and the project must also provide for eight bicycle parking spaces next slide Above is the landscaping plan in the light blue shown above our existing planting beds within the public right away that will retain dwarf natal palms. In the purple in the upper left hand corner will be new planting beds for coral aloe. Finally, in the dark turquoise along the building perimeter will be the planting beds of flax lilies. Next slide, please. The project has requested one warrant and one exception as part of the request. The warrant is for the height to floor ratio to be adjusted from standard regulations, while the exception is to adjust the rear setback where an alley is present Specifically, per the Midtown Corridor Code, buildings are allowed a certain ratio of floor space per story depending on the height of the building. Per the code, buildings that are four stories are allowed to have 75% building footprint on the fourth story, but then can be permitted to have a 25% building footprint on the fifth story. Instead, the applicant is seeking a 100% fourth story footprint with no fifth story. Staff believes this adjustment would not have a significant impact on the surrounding area as many nearby structures, including the adjacent parking garage, as well as the primary community memorial hospital building already contain buildings of similar height and massing. Additionally, the project is asking for an exception to reduce the rear setback along the alley from the required 20-foot setback down to zero. In this zoning district, four-story buildings on lots with an alley are normally required to step back from the rear property line. However, the proposed medical office building is designed to sit directly at the alley edge so that it can match the existing urban pattern and align with other alley serve buildings in the Midtown corridor area. This change won't create visual or shading impacts because the rear of the building already faces an alley, is not seen as a sensitive use, and the surrounding area has already zero lot line development in the rear yard. Next slide, please. Above is a visual showing the second, third, and fourth stories of the CMH Medical Office Building 2 building being built at a 100% floor ratio for the upper three levels from the second to fourth floor, with the fourth floor being the one requesting the warrant.

Next slide, please.

And above is the exception diagram showing where the first and second story encroachment would be, the third story encroachment, and then the fourth story encroachment. and it's relative to the setback requirements. Next slide, please. Finally, the applicant is requesting a lot line adjustment to adjust the property line of the existing site to be more southeast in order to allow for the building to be constructed. Normally, the lot line adjustments are handled ministerially through the plan division and surveying divisions prior to be recorded per municipal code. If it's being grouped with other projects that require a public hearing, the lot line adjustment is heard through the public hearing. Next slide, please. This project qualifies for CEQA class 32 exemptions because it redevelops an existing site within the city and is fully consistent with the general plan. The site is already developed, so there is no habitat for rare or threatened species on site and the project doesn't create significant impacts as it pertains to traffic, noise, air, or water quality. Because it meets all the criteria for class 32 exemption, no additional environmental review is required.

Next slide, please.

And with that, staff is recommending as condition that the Planning Commission approve the major design review, the warrant, the exception to setback standards, the warrant to height ratio standards, and the lot line adjustment as condition. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. And the applicant's representative is here to field any questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Tyler. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff?

Yeah, OK.

I'll do my best to keep my head on a swivel. And I got Commissioner McCarty first, followed by Commissioner Zucker. Commissioner Comden, did I see you have your hand raised? I just have a question. OK, so we'll go third there. And then we'll go Abby. There we go. All right.

Thank you, Tyler. Would you mind reiterating what you mentioned about dark sky compliance? You had something to say, and I just missed it.

Oh, the design review committee recommended that any lighting that be installed on the building be night sky, dark sky compliant. And the applicant agreed to a condition that's in the resolution. I believe it's condition 22 or 23. Let me look quickly. That would require the building to have that said type of lighting. And then at building plan check, the building inspector and plans review would look to make sure that it meets that.

Okay, I have a copy.

Condition 22.

Okay, I'll have a comment to make on that later, but thank you, that answers my question.

Okay. Vice Chair Zucker?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. I was wondering about the rear alley setback. Is that kind of primarily for protecting views, or is there any kind of safety component around kind of visibility turning into or out of the alley, for example?

Off the top of my head, I don't think there's anything in our code that explicitly talks about that for this type of height. I would imagine it has to do with safety and concerns about any visibility of cars turning in and out, but unless there's anything you want to shine on.

No, I'm not aware of it being a safety concern.

Thank you. And then I'm remembering a while back a project that came to us from the Planning Commission related to that parking structure. And it's hard for me to recall the kind of details of what was in there, but I assume this is related to the credited parking spaces here. Is there anyone kind of with some of that institutional memory who could kind of refresh the Planning Commission on what happened previously, how those parking spaces are credited?

I think probably the best the applicants can go ahead and explain. But effectively, when that parking structure was constructed, they went into a partnership with the city for that construction. And through that, there's an agreement that the buildings that are along Main Street in that hospital corridor area would benefit from the construction of that parking lot, so they wouldn't have to build the parking on their own site. And there are credits for them. I think the building that you're talking about is at the corner of Five Points, where an office building is proposed, and they are also taking advantage of the parking structure. and having parking put into that building. At some point, they will run out of parking spaces, so it won't be eventually used by everyone, but it will benefit a variety of buildings on that corridor there.

Thank you.

Commissioner Comden.

Thank you, Chair. Will the applicant be making a presentation on your own, or is now the time to kind of roll all the questions together for both of you?

The applicant's present to field questions. They do have a presentation on hand if you all wish to see it.

Okay. I was interested in that drive up, drop off area. I think it's slide 17. I wanted to see that a little better and understand the traffic flow. There you go. If you could explain that a bit more, that would be helpful.

I should have that in the DRC folder so I can pull that up. They have a animated video kind of showing different vantage points I can pull up and bring into the drive if you want to hold for a second and I can get that loaded. It might help visualize what you're referring to.

If it please the commission, I'd be interested in seeing that.

Yeah, we can pull that forward. Okay. Any other questions? I'll move on to another question while that's being pulled up. Excellent. Commissioner Abbey.

Do you have a diagram of where the parking is? Part of it's in the structure. The 87 credit is in the existing parking structure, correct?

So the larger majority of the parking will be in the parking structure, yes.

Okay, and then there's 84 spaces to be, it said in the rear parking. Where are the 84 spaces that are not in the existing structure? Is that a structure that's a part of this four story building?

My understanding it's the parking structure directly behind the building, which is another hospitally controlled parking structure. And so they got credit within that parking structure for those other spaces.

Well, there's 87 in the existing structure. Where's the other structure that they're going to have the 84 in?

I think the applicant can explain how the different parking spaces. I don't believe we have a diagram for those spaces.

We'll get there. It's a great question. We'll get there.

We'll allow for that once we get through some questions. We'll allow the applicant time to answer some questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Go to slide 18 and show the corner element that the DRC was wanting and it looks like that they're going to comply with. I just wanted to see what was it about that element? Can you describe what DRC was asking for? They wanted a more architecturally pleasing and so that is different from the rest of the building. So that was the purpose for that, correct?

Right, originally that corner right there where you see the glass element from the second to fourth story was not present at all. And in the resubmitted package, it included that glass element to kind of create an activated corner element.

OK, very good. Let's see. Could you go to the resolution, page 22? It talks about, I know that's the dark sky compliant condition, but it doesn't specifically use the word dark sky compliant, and I'm just curious why it didn't include those specific words.

Does it say night sky lighting or something like that? I don't have it in front of me.

I can pull it up on the screen, but it states all lighting is to be designed to confine the light within the site boundaries and to provide safety and security. All building entrances and pedestrian ways are to be adequately lighted. Lighting is to be shielded from neighboring properties and directed at a specific task or target. Exposed bulbs are prohibited unless the community development director determines exposed bulbs are integral to the architectural design. In concept, we don't have a night sky compliant zoning requirement that we can point to. And so this was describing those requirements in more explicit terms rather than the general terminology of night sky compliant.

Okay. Those are my questions for now. Thank you.

Commissioner, a long request?

I have a few, but they might get kicked down the road to the applicant. I have some concerns like Commissioner Zucker regarding the alley. Do we have concerns that people are going to want to walk down the alley?

I do think in practice as this becomes more of a hospital medical site, this whole area will be used and people will walk from building to building. There will be staff that might work in different buildings or may need to park in different areas. So there will be more activity in this area because of the connectivity of all these buildings.

But there's no sidewalk. So we'll be putting people in the street with cars. Am I understanding that correctly?

I believe it's designed as an alleyway, but people do walk in that alleyway. I don't believe our transportation division had concerns about that.

It's an access alleyway, correct? Correct. And is the patient drop-off, is that on the alley? Correct. Okay, so maybe I'll... I asked the applicant a little bit more about that. And then as far as the, were there operational requirements that the applicant's asking for the 100% on the fourth floor? Like, why not, what is the reasoning for not, or is that another good question for the applicant?

I don't believe there's an operational reason, but the applicant could respond to why they'd like that larger square footage on that upper floor.

All right, mm-hmm. That's it for now, thanks.

All right, Commissioner Whittinger, are there any questions?

Thank you.

84 spaces credited from another existing parking development, but it doesn't say, it says it's credited, but it doesn't say that they're actually providing the 171 parking spaces. I'd like that to be fleshed out a little better. Also, on the four-story, am I correct when I see your table that they can actually do 75% four-story and then do another 25% fifth-story?

Yeah, the Midtown Quarter recommends for a lot of buildings in order to kind of prevent these monolithic box structures to kind of terrace the buildings up a little bit. Obviously this one's not doing a terracing type of style, but the idea of by doing terracing is you can build the building a little bit taller to kind of offset lost space on lower floors. Okay. But this one was just designed to be at the four stories 100%.

And the design review committee liked the box

They liked the second revision of the design because it had more window articulation, it had space for window murals, it had the glass element at the corner Cabrillo in Maine, and it had a, I think it was also partially just because the renderings kind of better showed, visually showed what the building would look like in comparison to adjacent buildings.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, before we bring the applicant for any additional questions, I wanted to see if the video was ready to show.

Yeah, we're first loading up the original plan set of how the building looked prior to DRC comments. So this was the original submittal of how the building looked in December of 2025, which didn't show a corner element, nor did it show any space for any artwork or mural, as you can see in the upper left hand corner.

Commissioner Winnegar has a question. I have another question.

Is there any plans to do anything to the, I guess it's the east, southeast, the smaller retail right next to it. Is there any plans for those in the future for CMH or anything we know about?

I will defer to the applicant for that one.

I don't believe that those are owned by the hospital. I think those are owned by another property owner, but we can ask the hospital to provide any additional insights into that. Is this the video?

Yeah, this video shows specifically the passenger drop-off area.

So is that alley meant to be a one-way or a two-way? Two-way. So would you normally approach from the far end, pull in, drop off, and then exit? OK. And this is Cabrillo, the side street. This is not Main Street here.

I'm going to invite the applicant to head to the microphone so that the comments and questions can be captured and heard. Absolutely, please up to up to our podium over there, sir. Thank you And then I would ask for Commissioner Comden to repeat his question and that be re-answered. Thank you.

Is that alleyway one way or two way?

Alleyway is two way.

Okay, and so the intent is to arrive you can you arrive to that drop off from either direction the alleyway or um further south towards telephone the alleyway i believe off of cabrillo you would arrive off of cabrillo and then into the building main entrance no you would not come from the other direction okay and the carve out how many cars can fit into that uh too comfortably too comfortably okay Thank you.

And I would invite the applicant to provide some core clarity around the parking, the allocation of what the existing and the reservation of those spots to meet the needs.

Hello.

Thank you. My name is Jake Dinn and I'm executive vice president and partner at PMB. We're the health care real estate development company that is this esteemed Community Memorial Hospital and the development of this project. The allocation of the parking comes from the existing facility that's on the site currently. than for the patients. Got it.

So it won't be allocated, but this is headed towards the city's parking requirement. In effect, there may be some impact on patient parking, but it's not like this spot will no longer be a public spot and it'll be a private. Correct. Thank you.

Commissioner Lara, what's the deal?

um so well the easier of my questions is to to deal with the the four stories um i mean i think i can get on board but did was there any of so why i mean you know this isn't like a residential development that we know how many apartments we're losing when we reduce the the floor so what are the requirements that you guys are meeting that needed the full fourth floor

mean it's it's a pretty big box and so I'm just you know we we have these requirements in place to avoid this massing and here we are having this discussion so I'm just curious what were the requirements that you're trying to meet yeah it all really comes down to health care delivery and there are certain requirements and certain industry standards if you will for a group likes Community Memorial Hospital deliver standard of care that makes it a lot more efficient for patients to get in and out of, and for providers to see patients efficiently. And the floor plate that we put forth here on the three stories, two stories to four, is that footprint. It's that canvas we need to create that patient flow, the provider flow, and the efficiencies needed to deliver healthcare. if we were allowed to pull that back a little bit it would constrain a lot of that delivery methodology that we try to institute um to help this the health system become more efficient okay um so moving back to the alley i so there's no sidewalk right it is the building is going to be right on the correct as you can see right there if you can pause it real quick perfect spot yeah that's close enough uh so the the sidewalk Go back to the microphone is on the lower half of the screen, as you see here. So the pedestrian traffic is really kept on that Cabrillo side. And then the sidewalk, if you need to go to Baskin Robbins for an ice cream because you just got a shot, you know, you can go around the corner and down Main Street where there's a nice, beautiful sidewalk with the landscaping and so forth. So the intent is for pedestrians to go towards Main Street and to the left.

were there any studies done on the turning radius on that corner?

A lot of, yes.

And is it meeting only a specific size vehicle? I mean, I'm looking at that thing, and I have a truck, and I'm pretty sure it's not going to get there.

I have a truck, too. So, yes, that was my main concern, was the larger SUVs, the larger trucks, GMC, Sierra, owner, myself, can I make that radius turn? And absolutely you can.

Okay, okay. And then, and so we don't, have any safety concerns? I mean, we have a tall building, and this is kind of, I'm just raising a concern, and we can deliberate, but we have a tall building, taller, it's not huge, right on an alley with nowhere to walk with two-way traffic. It just feels a little constraining. But you've answered all my questions, so I really appreciate that.

Commissioner Winninger.

i'm sorry if i'm being obtuse but i still don't understand where the 171 parking spaces are i i get that 87 or so are in the parking structure but this credit of parking spaces where are they physically located

Yeah, in the parking structure. So there's an existing building that we're going to demolish that's sitting on this current site that has that allocated parking in the parking structure. So it's kind of a... Oh, it does? Yes.

Oh, I didn't realize that. The little building that's there now has 84 parking spaces allocated in the garage?

Correct. Thank you. Yes. It's a little misleading. Thank you.

There's a question on the parking. By absorbing the surplus, will that exhaust all surplus parking spots in the parking garage?

I'd have to go back and check. I can't say yes or no to that question. I don't believe so, but I would have to check. And there is a bigger parking study and a bigger parking arrangement between Community Memorial Health and the city of Ventura that's in works right now. But that's a bigger, broader concern.

Right. Yes, Commissioner Larquist. Sorry. Was there any evaluation of emergencies in that alley, like if a fire truck had to get in there or a ladder truck, all of that?

Yeah, we have to comply with all City of Ventura fire life safety. The height is the main thing, right? How are you going to service a fire? How are you going to service? Is there a telescopic ladder that can reach up to the top story? And apparently there is. Okay, thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Condon. Do you know the width of the alley by chance?

Not off the top of my head.

It'd be interesting to know.

Tyler? I can pull up the plans to see if it has it mentioned, and then I'll let you know.

Commissioner Abbey? I just had a quick question. So you said the patient loading is right there on the alley. in the back of the building, so on the opposite side from Main Street. How many cars does that queue allow for drop-off? It's hard to tell from this angle.

Right now it's showing two in the queue there. Three would be extremely tight. And it's for passenger loading and unloading. So able-bodied individuals obviously wouldn't drive under there and drop anyone off. They would just pull directly into the parking structure. It's only when you have a loved one that you would need to drop off. So it's a smaller portion of the patient population that will be utilizing that drop-off. unless there's a surgery center in the future then you'd be utilizing it for pickup and at that point you wouldn't be turning around to park in the parking structure you'd just be discharging out to the main street right thank you and then i just had a question it you said that going from main street by the building to to the parking structure right there along cabrillo

I see a crosswalk across Cabrillo, but I don't see it going across south to north. Is there going to be a crosswalk there?

Yeah, it was in the other image. But yes, there will be crosswalks painted. We'll probably put some type of lighting as well, just so you're aware of the flashing pedestrian crossing, just for safety. Thank you. Patient safety is critical in these healthcare projects.

Any additional questions from the commission for the applicant?

I just wanted to add the alley is 20 feet wide per, what is it, per the lot merger exhibit view.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Any more questions for staff? No, seeing as there are none, okay. I will now open the public hearing for any public speakers. Mr. Clerk, are there any public speakers on the item tonight?

Thank you, Chair. We don't have any public comments on this item.

All right. Thank you. With that, then I would bring it back to the Planning Commission for deliberation. Who would like to begin?

Yes, here we go.

I'll go. Thank you, Commissioner Riccardi. Start with you.

So first I have a comment. along the lines of Commissioner Lagerquist's concerns on the alleyway. And so my observation is that the proposed alleyway is very similar to the active alleyway right next to the parking structure currently at Santa Clara Avenue. There's an active alleyway right behind that structure between the parking structure and Main Street. I walked it today. I walked it all the time. And it's really the... duplicate of what we're seeing on the screen here and I don't I don't find any issues at all with that so that's my my impression of your response to your concerns about that I don't the alleyway behind the current Santa Clara structure works just fine and I see that this one is very similar to that with regard to Back to dark sky. And to follow up on Commissioner Abbey's question, which I had concerns about too. So in the resolution, in the findings section of the resolution, it says exterior lighting is designed to be dark sky compliant. In the conditions of approval section, it was, as you had read, all lighting is designed to confine the light, et cetera. I would like to more explicitly specify in the conditions of approval that the lighting will be dark sky compliant, as we have done for other projects. Observation about the warrant and exception requested. Having been a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, we spent a lot of time talking about the hospital corridor. And what I see from this presentation is that what's proposed is consistent with what the GPAC envisioned and what city council approved for this portion of the hospital corridor. So I don't think either the request for the warrant, which is the 100% fourth floor build out, or the rear setback being at zero feet instead of 20 feet, I don't think that's inconsistent with what the GPAC discussed and what city council approved in the 2050 general plan. I don't consider... the fourth floor 100% build out, either unsightly or ungainly. It is, to me, a good looking building and I don't have any issues with the warrant or the exception request. So those are my observations.

Thank you. Commissioner McCarty, Commissioner Comden, and then Vice Chair Zucker.

Thank you, Chair. I'm gonna echo what Commissioner McCarty just said. With this one additional comment about it, this is the tallest building on Main Street aside from two larger buildings in downtown. There's nothing in Midtown or in the hospital corridor of this height or mass. And what we allow, we encourage. So one of the questions I have for staff is if, say, someone across the street not having to do with the hospital corridor, although I don't know if the other side of Main Street is considered in that or not technically, could we see an amalgam of buildings like this built out 100% in the future? because this sets a precedent as far as I'm concerned, being the first of its kind. And that's something that I'm cognizant of and just wanna bring to the commission's awareness. Staff, any comment on that?

Yeah, I'm pulling up the, across the street, it's T45 zoning with residential one over, let me make sure I'm looking at the right property.

I'll just keep riffing here for a minute. This isn't blocking any neighbors' backyards, sun views, or anything of that sort. If this is going to be built, this is about as good a spot as it could be built. And it's a good use of space, and we want the hospital to thrive and expand and do good things for our community. So for all those reasons, it's a good plan. I just want to

Well, just to note, the properties to the south are T5-2 zoning, and they're permitted to go up to a maximum height of six stories from parapet to ridgeline, provided for a flat roof that doesn't exceed 70 feet or for a sloping roof 75 feet. So it could be even taller than what this is.

Even taller. Would there be setback requirements for them?

There's no front setback. The rear setback does have stepping back for an alley facing, specifically with an alley five foot minimum to any one or two story buildings, 10 foot minimum for three story elements. Okay, it's very akin to this one, and then 25 for four-story elements. So there is stepping back for rear elements, but it can be zero lot line on the street, and it can be up to six stories.

Right. The rear, I'm not concerned about. There's no residences around here, and it would just be, I think, continuing to face the parking structure. I don't know the configuration there. But on the front side, what you're saying is the adjacent properties can go up to six stories and be a monolith six-story frontage.

I mean, they could go up to six storeys, yes.

OK. All right.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Zucker.

Thank you, Chair. I'll echo some similar comments as Commissioner McCarty. I'll maybe go kind of macro to micro. I think at a macro level, I agree that this is, I think, what's envisioned by the city for this kind of, you know, wellness district or area to, you know, have kind of the growing health care sector. And yeah, I think there's a real value to the kind of mix of income level of jobs that are provided in the healthcare sector. And it's one of the kind of bright spots of the national economy that continues to grow. I do appreciate the taking of some of the recommendations from the DRC. I think overall the design of the building looks pretty decent. I think in terms of the kind of full lot coverage all the way up. Personally, I'm not the biggest maybe stickler for some of the kind of terraced getting smaller. I think some of the most beautiful cities in the world have buildings that go all the way up to the lot line and that can be part of what makes it attractive in an urban area. Reason it may be valuable is to kind of You know limit shading over hangover over kind of a you know say nearby single single-family residential You know big building looming over someone's backyard, but you know that's that's not the case here Yeah, I you know definitely was curious about potential safety concerns around the alley but to me those concerns have been answered well by by the the staff and applicant and if there are no safety issues and You know, I'm not so concerned about protecting the beautiful views from the parking structure alley, right? So, you know, I will say on the overall amount of parking, Ten months ago, my baby son was born. I was taking my wife in labor into the parking structure. I think they were switching over the digital medical system, and it was really tough to find parking. I was in a panic. I can imagine there will be some tough impacts over time as that lot gets filled out. you know kind of surplus patient parking gets gets filled with more staff parking but um so i'm i'm concerned about that that being said i think from a legal you know perspective or kind of planning commission perspective um you know that the applicant did earn those parking spots and seems to be be complying with with kind of you know, city rules and regulations. And so there may not be that much we can do about it, but I would just say, you know, as a community member to CMH, you know, I hope we're thinking about, you know, patient parking, because it can become an issue sometimes.

Thank you. Commissioner Robby.

Thank you, Chair Boussa.

I do want to start with the comment from Commissioner Lagerquist. I think it's something that we need to be thinking about. I don't think we should... automatically dismiss it out of hand. And I'm not saying that anyone is. But I'm glad that was brought up. So the fact that they're in the plan and the code, the code wants to encourage variability. So not everything is just block and just flat. So if part of it was three and part of it was four, part of it was five, that would be a much more architecturally interesting building. So I'm going to set that aside. I agree with most all of the other commissioners. This is a building that's going to be put in front of a parking structure. And so in essence, from Main Street, we'll be hiding a parking structure, which is actually a good thing. And as has been pointed out several times already, this is not right near residential. It's not going to cast any shadows. So this would be an area where I wouldn't be as concerned with step backs and setbacks. On the whole, I am supportive of the project. I'll reserve my final judgment until we actually go to vote. But I do think in the future we need to keep that architectural variance in mind. I do want to applaud the DRC for making the design changes that they did. And I'm glad that those windows look different. There's an accent color there. It makes it a more interesting building. If it hadn't been there, I would agree with the DRC that it Well, they didn't say it, but it would have appeared much more sterile, and I'm glad this moved in the direction that it did, so thank you.

Commissioner Lagerquist. Thank you, Chair. So overall, I agree that this is a great project. Kudos for taking the DRC recommendations and definitely making it a more attractive building. I think my concerns have been articulated. I would encourage the commission to not dismiss our zoning requirements. for one particular building for one reason and for another building for another reason. I think that we set ourself up for precedence and so those things have to be considered. I'm not sure how we could evaluate what exactly as far as setbacks and filling up the envelope of this area. I'm just telling me that the GPAC, this is exactly what they've intended. That doesn't sit well with me because I think we have zoning requirements for a reason. So I was frustrated by that. But I appreciate all of the answers. I really appreciate you answering my questions. um very helpful answers and I you know I have less concern about the safety I don't think this is a very good analogy for I if you were talking about the Santa Clara clear deck downtown the alley behind that that's not at all the same in my opinion and so um that alley is practically a walking space it's like a mini walking mall to get to the rear i mean it's just very different having said that you know i i too i'm not concerned about the shadowing like all that makes total sense we're not talking about a residential area and um and i appreciate that the all the evaluations were done to meet you know emergency requirements and turning radiuses and things like that so overall i'm fine with the project i just i really struggle when we're asked I feel like sometimes our hands get tied. We're asked to, you know, you guys have gone through this long process. I know, believe me, I understand. And you fit this design inside of an envelope that you were given. And then it comes to us and we don't get a lot of information about why, you know, why does it have to, why couldn't you have at least given 10 feet or five feet off of that? It just puts us in a really difficult position. And again, it sets precedents. And so those are my concerns. It has nothing to do with the project. The project's lovely. I appreciate that.

Commissioner Winninger.

Thank you. Sorry about the phone call earlier. My son. I echo most of the other planning commissioners comments. I actually do think that this is adhering to the zoning code because the zoning code does allow for warrants and exceptions, especially for a form based code, which is so onerous and so hard to put certain uses within The form-based code is based on architecture and not necessarily uses. And so, you know, you answered the question for me that this would be more a better definition of space than to do the little 25% of the fifth story, which who knows what goes up there. I didn't hear, unfortunately, Commissioner McCarty's comments or Commissioner Abbey's question about the dark sky ordinance, but I do just want to reiterate to CMH, since you're here, that I would encourage the doctor's offices on the Main Street side to make sure that their lights go dim around 6 p.m. Because that could be a nuisance. I can see that as being a nuisance. You know, dark sky ordinance actually covers the building, not necessarily the inside lights. So anyway, just a comment. I am comfortable with the safety of the crosswalk areas and I love the drop off area. I think that's very smart. And I do appreciate that you responded to the design review committee's comments. So I have no problems with this project.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. My final comments, appreciate the thoughtful deliberation by the commission and the points raised. I concur with Commissioner Lagerquist in the sense of the precedents that get set. And if the intent of the GPAC was to have this kind of fill out in this area, then that's what the code should have been. understanding as well that we allow for warrants and exceptions where appropriate and in this case given this location away from residential abutting a parking garage and for its use in proximity with the existing medical center i am supportive of this as well i think we've this commission is

pretty consistent with our preference on dark sky requirements.

I think you're going to hear that consistently any project if our viewer out there is listening. And that would be something I think as we go to a motion on this that we would include that in our language as we have in the past. And those are my comments at this time.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the staff recommendation with the additional verbiage Commissioner McCarty indicated about dark skies.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the project as conditioned with the additional Specification that the conditions of approval have that exterior lighting will be dark sky compliant. Commissioner McCarty?

Yes.

Commissioner Winninger?

Yes.

Commissioner Lagerquist?

Yes.

Commissioner Abbey?

Yes.

Commissioner Comden?

Yes.

Vice Chair Zucker? Yes. Chair Boussa?

Yes.

Seven ayes, motion carries.

Thank you. All right, we will now move on to item number three, the Pittsfield Residence Project 250795, a request for an amendment to a coastal development permit, a major variance, and a minor design review for an addition to an existing 1127 square foot single family residence dwelling at 1107 Pittsfield Lane. The proposed addition would cumulatively increase the building's original footprint by more than 20%. The major variance is requested to reduce the required garage parking from two spaces to one space on a 3230 square foot site located in the R2B2 family beach zoning district. Sequel determination is exempt. Mr. Tyler Walter, up again.

Thank you. Good evening, again, members of the commission. As noted, the case before you is project 25-0795, the Pittsfield resident's coastal development permit design review and major variance. Next slide, please. Subject property, as noted, is located at 1107 Pittsfield Lane, which is located in the Pierpont community of the city. This area is primarily single and two family residential uses with the commercial tourist overlay zone approximately two blocks to the north of said site. Next slide, please. Above are photos of the area surrounding the existing site with the subject property in the upper left hand corner. The immediate area is composed of single and two family residential uses ranging from one to two and a half stories in height.

Next slide please.

The subject property is specifically within the two family beach zone or the R2B zone. This zoning district is characterized by residential uses that are situated along the coastal areas of the city, in particular with the Pierpont community. R2B zoning permits various residential uses, which includes single family, multifamily, mobile home, and condominium uses. The proposed project would still comply with the R2B zoning regulations. Next slide, please. The subject property has gone through several different approvals over its history. Specifically, the subject property contains an existing 1,016 square foot single family residence with an attached 255 square foot single car garage, which was constructed in 1955. Between 2010 and 2022, an unpermitted rear addition measuring of approximately 350 square feet was constructed. This property was sold to the current owner in March of 2023. And shortly after that purchase, the owner sought to remedy the unpermitted addition by applying for a coastal development permit to demolish and reconstruct a 111 square foot addition, which is outlined above in green. That project known as project 23-0423 was for an addition for a bathroom and laundry room, which was approved by the community development director in January of 2024. This project is an amendment to that said project, which requests to enlarge the addition by 224 square feet to be used as a game room, shown above in blue. Next slide, please. Above is the project site plan, showing the building's footprint and the areas with crosshatching showing active construction and planned construction. The site plan also shows the existing garage, which is a nonconforming setback that encroaches 10 feet into the 20-foot front yard setback. The proposed addition is part of a larger scale addition, as noted in the rear of the building, as well as interior renovations within the existing residence, which are also located towards the rear of the building. The front of the residence, including the existing garage, would remain unchanged.

Next slide, please.

Above is the south elevation, or the front elevation, showing the front of the house, with the addition area shown in red and the main garage outlined in blue. The front of the residence would largely remain the same as the rear addition would be situated in the back of the house.

Next slide, please.

Above is the eastern elevation showing the location of the addition outlined in red. Next slide, please. And above is the same perspective, but from the western elevation. Next slide, please. Subject property necessitates a major variance, specifically to reduce the number of covered garage parking spaces from two covered garage spaces to one space as it presently exists. Under the municipal code, cumulative additions that exceed 20% of the dwelling's original floor area trigger the requirement for two covered garage spaces within the R2B zone. The dwelling was originally measured at 1,016 square feet, and including the previous addition in January of 2024, as well as this addition, it represents a 335 square foot addition, totaling to a 32% increase of the original building footprint, therefore exceeding the 20% threshold and necessitating compliance with the two space garage requirements. Next slide, please. Historically, staff and the Planning Commission have normally been unsupportive of parking reduction variances within the Pierpont community, and this is due to Pierpont being heavily constrained by limited curb space, limited off-street parking, and narrow streets. In this situation, however, construction of the second required garage space would in turn create several unintended consequences. The major consequence being that constructing the second garage bay would decrease the amount of off-street parking on the subject property. Presently, as shown above, on the right-hand side, the subject property is able to park three vehicles for parking spaces by means of one indoor garage parking space in the upper right corner, and two outdoor spaces in the middle right side of the slide. Adding a second garage bay shown on the left side would in turn create a net loss of one total on-site parking space from three spaces to two. This outcome runs counter to the intent of the parking standards, which aim to maintain and improve the parking availability in the Pierpont area and to maximize the amount of available off-street parking spaces, as shown in the diagrams above. Next slide, please. The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15301 class one existing facilities of the guidelines since it consists of a small addition in the rear to an existing single family residence in a residential zone. This project would not trigger any of the exemptions listed under CEQA guidelines and therefore no further environmental review is required. Next slide please. Given the unusual constraints of the subject property, staff is recommending, as conditioned, that the Planning Commission approve the Coastal Development Permit, the design review, and the major variance as conditioned. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. And the applicant's representative is present on the Zoom call to field any questions you may have of them. Thank you.

Thank you, Tyler. Commissioners, questions for staff? I'm going to start to my right today. All right, Commissioner Abbey. Thank you, Chair Boussa.

Tyler, could you go to the slide that talks about the cumulative additions that exceed 20% of the original building footprint? OK, so the first point says,

that if there's cumulative additions that exceed 20 original building footprint then you would you would normally think you would normally not allow that we would allow it if they meet the parking requirements and that would be having two covered garage parking spaces if they hit that 20 thresholds and the first edition that was approved in 2024 only resulted in a 10 total addition to the existing footprint. And then this addition brings that total cumulative amount to 32%. And that's done so that applicants don't piecemeal additions together so that they can create a larger building while skirting requirements. Right.

Now, what is the use of the addition that went before the community development director in January of 2024? That was 111 square feet. What's that used for?

That was used for a laundry room.

Okay. Is that going to remain a laundry room?

It'll remain a laundry room. Okay. Just for what it's worth, the additions to this building aren't for any additional bedrooms or anything of that nature. It wouldn't result in an increase of bedrooms or anything of that nature. The amount of occupants remain the same.

Right.

The 224 square feet

It was like a family room or what was the use? I saw it in the report.

It's intended to be used as a game room right now.

As a game room, okay. I'm not saying that a homeowner would do this, but if it was approved as a game room and then it became a bedroom, is that something that the code enforcement would be concerned about?

Well, I don't know if they would necessarily be concerned about it, but I think it would be something that planning would look at a little bit closer because that could result in more residents in the building and therefore more parking. But kind of going back to the reason why staff is supportive of this major variance is because right now it would allow for three cars here. I'm not exactly sure of the living situation for the current resident right now. I believe there's one resident at the building right now. Obviously that could change in the future if it was to be sold to a different, to like a small family or something, but I believe there's two, I'll refer to the applicant on the specific number of bedrooms, but I believe there's two bedrooms in this residence right now.

Okay. Can conditions be put on this to preclude it from becoming a bedroom?

If there's any conditions you want to add, you can certainly deliberate that and request that.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Commissioner Lagerquester, Commissioner Widenger, as I make my way right, if there are any questions.

Commissioner Widenger?

I'll head to my left.

Commissioner Comden. Thank you, Chair.

So this addition is going to be converted into a game room and go from 9 feet 9 inches to a little over 12 feet in height. Is that? Am I portraying that? Yes.

It'll be 12 feet 9 inches in total height. So it'll still be, by all metrics, a one-story building. It's just the rear addition shown up here above would be a little bit taller than the existing building as it is right now. It would still be basically a bungalow building with kind of a shed-like roof in the back.

It makes sense to make a game room have elevated ceilings. And that three feet of difference, or less than three feet, unless you had kind of a wonky loft or something, wouldn't really convert easily into a second story, if you will.

So I'm not concerned with that.

So I am, can you define for us if it's only a two bedroom and there's three parking spaces here, it's certainly sufficient for a two bedroom. Would they need to do anything if they wanted to convert the laundry room into a bedroom in the future or something of that sort?

Well, I think it could be revisited about making a garage space. But at the same time, when it comes, this would be entitled to have this type of one vehicle, one enclosed parking space. As Commissioner Abbey was bringing up, there could be something that's conditioned saying, as it runs through the land, this variance would require to have this type of parking configuration. Yeah. So that way there's always three.

Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Zucker?

So our codes have requirements around covered garage parking, but not total parking space?

Correct, in this specific zone.

What is the reason for that? Why does it matter more?

I don't know if there's a specific reason behind it. My guess is that it's to just kind of screen the view of vehicles from there, maybe make it look a little more sightly, not seeing vehicles parked there. It could also be because it's closer to the ocean that it would mean more wear and tear on the vehicle that's parked there.

And I think to add, sometimes folks are actually constructing in the area that might be the only other place to place the parking.

And so this would be a way to make sure that we encourage that they maintain at least two parking spaces within a garage.

It's pretty typical in single-family zone districts to require a two-car garage, although I know that we're moving away from parking standards in that manner now. But historically, in most single-family neighborhoods, a two-car garage is pretty typical. In this situation, they would not be losing parking by building this addition, and so we feel in support of this because they've maintained three parking spaces on the site.

Commissioner Irving?

Was this, this property has a rear setback. Is it 20 and they're proposing 15 here?

I have to look for the specific setback.

And then also the lot coverage I'm interested in as well.

I look for the specific lot coverage. It does meet the rear 15 foot setback.

I believe it's a 60% in R2B, but I'll take a quick look at the code.

Vice Chair Zucker?

Is there anything that would prevent, so say it was approved as is, would there be anything preventing someone from the future taking that outside area that's used for parking and putting in some nice landscaping and no longer using it for their cars or putting a trampoline for the kids or whatever?

There's nothing that would prevent it unless you put a condition in there saying that it must maintain that type of parking there. And then if someone was to then do that, it could trigger a Code violation, not in compliance. Got it, thank you.

Any additional questions?

I believe we're still waiting for final answers. I'm just looking to verify the lock coverage. Thank you.

Okay, but it was confirmed that it's a 15-foot rear setback allowed. Okay.

Looking for the exact density of the property itself, but it's a 60% lot coverage allowed per the municipal code.

60% allowed, and what is it? What's the proposed lot coverage?

Oh, that's what I'm looking up right now.

I just wanted to- Oh, sorry.

Sorry.

It's on the . 42%.

You said 42%? 42. Okay, thank you for that, Commissioner Winninger.

Thank you.

OK. Any other questions from the commission?

OK. Seeing if there are no other questions at this time, I'll open the public hearing for item number three. Mr. Clerk, do we have any public speakers?

Thank you, Chair. We don't have any public speakers for this item.

OK.

Perfect.

All right. I actually wanted to go back. Did you have a question, Commissioner Abbey, for the applicant?

Apologies. I don't think so. OK. All right.

Seeing as there's no public comment.

I believe the applicant has their hand raised and wanted to speak. I think we're just trying to get him unmuted.

All right.

Mr. Griffin, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Yes, I think I'm unmuted now.

Yeah, we can hear you loud and clear. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah, I didn't really have anything to add. I just, you know, make myself available for any questions you might have. I think Tyler covered it pretty well exactly what we're looking for.

All right, thank you. All right, with the public comment closed, I will bring it back for commissioners for deliberation. Is there anybody who would like to begin? Commissioner Zucker, Vice Chair Zucker.

Thank you, Chair. I think it was really helpful to see the staff analysis around kind of the cumulative additions and how that triggers the parking requirement. I think that makes sense. Yeah, I do think, although it may not be proposed to use for a bedroom, we should consider it. It seems to be more based on square footage than that. I mean, I think it's a reality that you never know what a future owner could do, particularly inside of someone's home. I mean, it would be very hard for code enforcement to know if that was ever changed to a bedroom in the future.

But I do think it's interesting that our codes focus more on garage parking than actual parking.

To me, I agree there are chronic parking issues in the Pierpont lanes, but they have to do with actual parking, not how much parking is in garages. So that's more what I'm concerned about. And it does seem like the project as presented would actually have more actual parking, and actually more than we required, even if that addition was turned into a second bedroom. three parking spots for two bedrooms is more than reasonable. Ironically, an outdoor parking spot is probably more likely to remain in use as a parking spot than a garage. So many people turn their garages into storage for junk, which you can't really do with an outdoor parking spot. Um, you know, that being said, I would, I would be supportive of conditioning it to maintain those parking spots. I, you know, I do think as, as staff answered my question, there's nothing really to prevent someone otherwise from taking that outdoor space in their home and using it for another purpose other than, than parking and then, and then kind of, you know, spilling over into, into street parking. Um, there's plenty of things people might like to do with a little bit of outdoor, you know, square footage on their home, you know, put in some nice garden beds, whatever. And so if we're concerned about parking, I think that would be a more important condition, from my view, than conditioning it around the bedrooms, which to me wouldn't actually change the parking calculus.

Thank you. Any other commissioners in deliberation? Commissioner McCarty?

So Pierpont Lanes is my neighborhood, so I'm well aware of the space constraints, both with regard to construction of structural additions and parking. Parking is a huge issue in Pierpont area. With regard to Commissioner Zucker's request to maybe condition this not to give up parking spaces. I would push back on that in that for me as a planning commissioner to mandate how Pierpont resident uses their driveway is subordinate to how the owner would choose to use their driveway area. And I say that because as a longtime resident of Pierpont, I can attest to the fact that any transition or change from parking area in front of your house to something other than parking is really The owner is shooting himself or herself in the foot. That would be the last thing on the mind of any Pierpont resident would be to give up parking space adjacent to their home. So I would caution against conditioning the parking spaces in any way in that I don't think it's going to be an issue because it would be, in my mind, a fool's errand for a Pierpont resident to purposefully take away their own parking area. The construction I see in this project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and The solution with maintaining the garage space as it is, is a viable and logical solution to the space constraints. So I think that's a good plan. And I think the overall plan complies very well with the spirit of maintaining the existing parking in the Pierpont Lanes area. So I would support this project as is. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner Winninger and then Commissioner Abbey.

Thank you, Chair Russo. I actually want to commend planning staff for looking outside the box here. I know the code says anything over 20% has to have a second car garage, but if you look at this, this is a 3,000 square foot lot that was built in 1955. The house to the west of it is actually built almost three stories. Somebody demolished that house and put a three-story building on that house, on that lot. This person, this applicant, wants to build an additional space for his master bedroom. He's going from a two-bedroom to a two-bedroom. He's not infringing on his neighbors to the back and the side. bought a house with a one-car garage. He didn't demolish the second-car garage. He bought it with the one-car garage. I commend staff to look outside the box and let the applicant proceed with going to Planning Commission to ask our opinion about it. But I am in favor of this project. I think they're working with what they have. They are not asking for a three-story home. They are not infringing on their neighbors. There's no neighbors that have appeared at the hearing. And I'm in support of this project. And again, I thank staff for actually looking outside the box and working with the applicant.

Thank you. Commissioner Abbey.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. This might be splitting hairs. I hope I'm not. So the letter of the law would say we need to Well, we know it's saying that it should do. I'm thinking a compromise that would fulfill the spirit without following the letter would be to say, keep the one existing garage bay, but require instead of an additional garage bay, require a second parking space. So my question, outdoor parking space at a minimum. So we would, I'm just wondering if that were the direction that we moved, would that be in violation of any state laws or any city ordinance? If we were to condition the project in that direction.

What's the question specifically?

Instead of keeping it as is and going with staff's recommendation, if instead we said keep one existing garage bay but require as a condition one outdoor parking space. Not saying they can't have two outdoor parking spaces for a total of three, but condition it to say that you need to maintain at least one outdoor parking space in addition to the existing garage space.

I mean, that seems doable. It seems like an enforceable item to condition to have.

Yeah, there's not a violation that would occur if they were to be parking in that area. They're allowed to park in their front yard or their driveway. So it would not be a violation of any rule or regulation.

Okay, but to require that they have at least one additional outdoor parking space rather than just having one garage space, that's not a problem.

Correct, it would be a condition of approval for this particular property. And if they wanted to change that in the future, they may need to amend this permit or come before you for another variance if they wanted to, say, fill this in with some other sort of structure.

I would be inclined to go that direction, but some might think that that was a difference that doesn't have any real meaning. So I'll be, I don't want to belabor this. But if there are any quick comments one way or the other, I'd be interested to see if fellow commissioners felt similarly. Thank you.

Commissioner Largoquist. Thank you, Chair.

I would like to discourage the commission from conditioning this project. I think we need to look forward. I agree with Commissioner McCarty that residents of Pierpont are not going to purposely take away their parking. um and i just feel like that is encroaching i feel like that's not really putting a condition on a property um i think that's just a little bit too much too much encroachment that condition would follow it around if that if it could potentially um you know affect the resale value of i just i just i'm really uncomfortable with that okay but just said something commissioner calm down

I concur with Commissioner Lagerquist and McCarty that additional restrictions on this are not fruitful. If they put potted plants on one of the three or the two outdoor parking spaces, they're not in violation of anything. If they had two cars and parked one outside and one on the inside, they'd be fine, right? So as long as it could be used as parking spaces and no permanent structures put on it, they can do with that third space whatever they wish and wouldn't be in violation. So I think that flexibility, there are some households that are one car situations and to have two dedicated additional spaces unnecessarily, I don't see the reason for it. So I'm with the no restriction.

All right. My comments were in alignment and concurrence with Commissioner McCarty and Commissioner Lagerquist. I appreciate that we have a commission that is representative of areas from across the city. And we get the great honor to have those insights brought before us. And I appreciate Commissioner McCarty's perspective of being a resident in this area. and seeing on a day-to-day how people are using their properties. And I concur with Commissioner Lagerquist in terms of maybe an overstep for us to add an additional barrier to that. And I'm supportive of the approval as is and welcome a motion at this time. Commissioner McCarty.

I'll move to approve staff's recommendation as stated. I'll second it.

All right, we have a motion from Commissioner McCarty and a second by Commissioner Abbey.

Okay, we have a motion to approve the project as conditioned. Commissioner McCarty? Yes. Commissioner Winninger? Yes. Commissioner Lagerquist? Yes. Commissioner Abbey? Yes. Commissioner Comden? Yes. Vice Chair Zucker? Yes. Chair Boussa? Yes. Seven ayes, motion carries.

Thank you. I got to be quicker next time.

Yes. Five minutes?

Absolutely. We're going to do just a quick five minute break and we'll resume with our final public hearing item.

There we go.

All right, we're going to get started again. Thank you, everybody, for that quick five minutes. All right, we'll now go to public hearing item number four, project 250965, a request for an exception to reduce a rear yard setback at 192 Rieta Avenue on a 7420 square foot lot in the R17 single family zoning districts within the Satakoi and Wells specific plan. Sequel determination is categorically exempt.

and we have our associate planner garvey present for a staff report thank you thank you good evening chair and commissioners as you just said this is a request for an exception at 192 riata avenue the project the project site is located on the east side of riata avenue in the northeast neighborhood of the sadakoy and wells community plant The site is surrounded by single-family residential development ranging from one to two stories. The site contains a 1,872-square-foot single-family residence and attached garage built in 1968. The site is located in the T3.3 optional zone of the Sadakoi and Wells Community Plan and was developed with the standards of the R1-7 zone. The structure was built prior to the adoption of the Sadakoin plan. That specific plan now allows homeowners to use the optional zones. Because this project better aligns with the standards outlined in the Sadakoin Wells plan, the applicant elected to use the optional zone T3.3. Warrants and exceptions are the two levels of variances from the evaluation standards of the Sadakoin Wells Development Code. This project is requesting an exception for reduced rear yard setback. The Saticoine Wells Community Plan states that building placement of primary buildings require an exception if not meeting the development code. Shown here are existing photos of the site from the front and rear of the residence. The proposed project contains a 432 square foot first floor addition on the east side of the existing residence in the rear yard area and a remodel of two existing bedrooms. The residence contains an existing rear yard setback of 27 feet and in addition will extend the existing residence 12 feet towards the rear property line resulting in a proposed rear yard setback of 15 feet rather than the minimum of 20 feet. Block coverage will be increased from 30% to 36% and the proposed addition will be aligned with the existing side setbacks. The addition is composed of two sections with an uncovered patio proposed in between, as shown in blue. The north portion contains a 168 square foot addition for sitting study area, and the south portion of the addition is a 228 square foot expansion of the living room. A portion of the existing residence's interior will be remodeled as part of this project. An exception is requested to accommodate the addition. The addition will have a roof height of 13 feet 4 inches, which is lower than the main house's peak height of 15 foot 2 inches, where the zone permits up to 20 feet to the eaves. As noted on the plans, all new materials and colors will match the existing reasons. The project conforms to all development standards in the neighborhood general zoning, except for the reduced rare yard setback, which the exception is requested. The map, this map shows properties that have a less than minimum rear yard setback shown with a star. There are around five on the street and surrounding streets. As shown, this project will be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. This project is categorically exempt from SQL 1501, existing facilities, since it consists of a small addition to the existing single family residence in a residential zone. project would not trigger any exceptions listed in sql guidelines 15300.2 therefore no additional environmental review is required staff recommends that the planning commission approve the exception request based on the project compatibility with the neighborhood scale and staff has received no public comments on the site thank you

Thank you. Are there any questions from the commission for staff at this time? Yes, Commissioner Abbey.

Thank you, Chair Bruce. Could you go back to slide, page 53? I'm sorry. What was the slide? Maybe it was before the, there we go. Existing block coverage is 30%. And proposed is 36%. Is that correct? Am I reading that correctly? Correct, yes.

And there's no standard for this specific plan, yes.

There's no standard. OK, thank you.

Commissioner Cromden.

Could you go to this slide? I think it's 53. And is there any way to zoom in? I think the subject property is right below the starred one in the centre. So it's the one below that star. Yeah, there you go. Okay. So they're pushing the house back to 15 feet. And I'm trying to establish what the structures are. The main house behind it is on the other side of its triangle lot. And they have two smaller structures. I'm just trying to see what... infringement being closer to the lot line would mean to them. Do you know what those structures are by any chance? Okay.

Yeah, because with the 176 one to the north, it's not approaching any closer than existing. But yeah, with the one that's 191, I forgot the street address on that. But yeah, they look like some sort of accessory structures. Right. Not really big enough to be livable. And they have an RV on the Google Maps. So it could be maybe a temporary. I didn't do any history on the years of it.

So what I find interesting is on the subject property, the setback right now is 27 feet.

Yes.

Wow. I have to tell you, it doesn't look like it's 27 feet, but I'm not there. It looks smaller than that. So that would be reduced by 12 feet or a little more than a third of the exposed area there on the right-hand side of the subject property. Okay. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yeah.

Any other questions? Commissioner Larquest?

Yes, thank you. Were the existing exceptions in the area, are they legal non-conforming or original?

Yes, so I was looking through. In the past probably 10 or 20 years, we didn't really see any records that had exceptions that went to planning commissions. So I would assume a lot are existing non-conforming.

That's my only question.

Okay, any other questions from the commission? All right, thank you. Seeing that there's no more questions from the commission, I will now open this up for public comment. City Clerk, are there any public speakers on this item?

Thank you, Chair. We have not received any public comments on this item.

All right, thank you. Seeing as we have no speakers, I will now close the public comment portion and bring this back to the commission for deliberation. Does any commissioner wish to begin deliberation? Commissioner McCarty.

My comment will be short and sweet. I see no compelling reason not to approve this.

Commissioner Ivey.

Okay, I'm looking at the slide that's there right now. So there's 27 feet between the rear of the building and the back fence.

So if we go, let's see.

Allowed is 20 feet. Let's see, existing is 27 feet. Allowed is 20 feet. Proposed is 15 feet.

Now, I did notice, let's go back to slide 53.

That one had the existing exceptions or warrants that were It was a map and it had like four different stars. So it looks like one, two, three, four. Now I'm thinking about the Pierpont area. And the Pierpont, we started over time, a lot of exceptions. In fact, the exceptions became by far the rule in the Pierpont area.

So you have to wonder why are the standards there? Why would we do that?

So at Pierpont, because they were not able to, the city was reticent in going to the Coastal Commission because if they put standards beyond what was originally approved in 89, they were worried that the Coastal Commission would demand additional requirements. And so that's why they didn't deal with it. That's why the city didn't deal with that issue forever. And I think, and understandably, we made exceptions as a planning commission over the years because we understood that the reality needed to be different, but we legislatively couldn't get that through. Now, in my thinking, Warrants and exceptions, yes, they're allowed. But I don't think those variances should, as a general rule, I don't think they should be routine. I think they should be true exceptions. So the question is, do we maintain a 20% rear setback, or are we going to, in effect, make this the new default that in this neighborhood 15 feet is what we're going to be doing, because this would be the fifth variance allowed for this rear yard setback. That would be my reasoning to say that is a good reason why we should maintain the existing 20-foot standard. Thank you.

Any other comments? Vice Chair Zucker?

It seemed to me, I was wondering in the staff report why there were so many variances. It seems like a relatively modern neighborhood and there didn't seem to be records in the city records of those properties actually applying for and getting those variances. And it seemed like my understanding reading the staff report was that the form-based code was imposed later in the Sadaquay Wells specific plan after maybe all of these homes were built as they were or had already made those additions. And so I think maybe it's a good question why would you impose a standard in the specific plan that might cause so many homes in the neighborhood to be legal non-conforming. But maybe there's reason for it. But to me, on its face, it seems relatively harmless. And I agree with Commissioner McCarty that I don't see a compelling reason not to approve the variance. It is consistent with other homes there. And those variants in other homes seem like they predated the code rather than the other way around.

Mr. Condon. Thank you, Chair. So the addition is to two bedrooms, extending them 12 feet farther. Do we know what the original dimensions of those rooms are?

Yeah, so there are the plans. They should be in the existing floor plan, which is Sheet A1. So let's see. So on the left side by the bedroom, that would be about 12 feet for the one on the left. And then on the right with the living room, that wall extends out. So it would be similar to that. Let's see, there's a dining room and then a living room. That would probably be a few feet more, maybe 15 on the living room.

So the existing rooms are 12 by...

Yeah, so bedroom is 12 by 16 around.

12 by 16 now. Yeah. And it was going to be proposed to extend to 24 by 16.

The new sitting area is 16 by 10.

I may defer to the applicant if we can confirm the square footage of those, but roughly

Yeah, I think Brian's estimations are close. It's a very small bedroom of about 10 by 12. And the new sitting area, which is not a bedroom, but part of that bedroom, would then measure 16 by 10. OK. All right.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think it might be helpful to have the applicant kind of walk us through what the expansion is and the purpose, et cetera, at the appropriate time.

Any other deliberation? I'm going to have to, do I need to go back to the public, open up the public hearing at this time?

We could just allow the applicant to. Yeah.

All right. I'm going to ask the applicant to help clarify the size of the additional space, please.

I'm Kevin Miller, the designer on the project. The one on the left-hand side is actually a bedroom, 12 foot by 12 foot about. And on the right-hand side is the living room. The living room's getting bigger. What happens is their parents moved in with them, so they need more space. So the living room's getting bigger. On the left-hand side, the bedroom's going to be about the same size, but they're adding a sitting area slash office, and that's kind of from there. That's it.

Thank you. I think that's helpful.

Appreciate the clarity. Thank you. Any other deliberation at this time? If not, I open the floor up for a motion.

I will move to approve staff's recommendation as conditioned.

All right, we have- I'll second. I'll second. I have a motion on the floor for Commissioner McCarty and a second from Commissioner Wendiger.

Thank you, Chair. We have a motion on the floor to approve as conditioned. Commissioner McCarty? Yes. Commissioner Winninger? Yes. Commissioner Lagerquist? Yes. Commissioner Abbey? No. Commissioner Comden? Yes. Vice Chair Zucker? Yes. Chair Boussa? Yes. Six ayes, motion carries.

Thank you. All right, we will now move on to our formal item of the evening, our general plan conformance review for 2027-2031 capital improvement plan. The recommendation is the Planning Commission approved by resolution of finding that the following projects are in conformance with the general plan. We have two items before us, projects numbers WW14-1078 and WW16-1097, as well as the remaining CIP projects. And I welcome our staff to present at this time.

Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Jeff Herford, interim city engineer for the city of Ventura. And I'm here tonight with Chandra Chandrasekhar, assistant engineer. And we are here for our annual general plan conformance review of the proposed 2027-2031 capital improvement program. This year is a bit different as in years past, as we are looking at conformance with the updated general plan that was just recently adopted by city council. Next slide. A little background on the Capital Improvement Program, or CIP. The CIP is a five-year program that is updated annually. Every other year is a major update to the program, and this is one of those years that we're completing a major update. The CIP is a plan for identifying projects that will maintain our current infrastructure and also plan for future infrastructure. Although the CIP is not a funding document, it does identify funding sources, and it also assists the city in meeting regulatory requirements. Per the city's charter, the CIP must be adopted by city council each year by April 1st. We are currently scheduled to go to city council on March 24th to adopt the CIP.

Next slide.

Factors in recommending CIP projects include public safety, regulatory requirements, legal requirements, and large maintenance projects. In addition to the factors shown on the slide, stakeholder comments and expectations, including those of the city council, guide the priorities. Next slide. This slide includes the project names of the 25 capital projects that will be substantially completed by June 30, 2026, or have already been completed this fiscal year. Projects shown in blue have been either fully or partially funded with Measure O. The approximate total value of these projects delivered is $80 million. And of that amount, approximately $9.6 million was funded through Measure O. Next slide. This slide provides a list of proposed new CIP projects which have been identified for funding. The bulk of the new projects are water and wastewater. And just as a reminder, the city council can approve and add new projects at any time. There have been several projects requested for inclusion in the CIP since the CIP was transmitted to city council in January. The projects identified in green are the additional projects for consideration. The projects listed in the first bullet point are being recommended for addition by Parks and Recreation Commission.

Next slide.

These next slides, I just wanted to highlight some of the projects that were the CIP projects that were completed this current fiscal year or substantially completed. This first one, the downtown Portland Lou project, will install a durable, accessible public restroom facility in Ventura's downtown to better serve residents, visitors, and local businesses. Designed for safety, ease of maintenance, and long-term reliability, the facility helps address hygiene needs while supporting a clean and welcoming public environment. This project reflects the city's commitment to enhancing downtown amenities and overall quality of life. I'm also happy to report that this new facility is currently scheduled to be open for actually this weekend for use. The fence should be coming down Friday is the goal.

Next slide.

The next project, the West Park Skate Park project, delivers a major community amenity. It's transforming this site into a 20,000 square foot facility and the largest, if you didn't know, skate park in Ventura County. Designed and built by Gridline Skate Parks with extensive community input, the project also includes enhanced landscaping, public art, and upgraded lighting. Funded through state grants, local investment, and grassroots support, this gate park provides a vibrant, inclusive space for recreation and youth engagement. Next slide. Cabrillo Village Multi-Use Path is a major milestone expanding safe, connected transportation options in Ventura, completing the final link in a continuous two-mile corridor along the Santa Clara River. This Class 1 bike path or multi-use path provides a dedicated space for walking, biking, and rolling, improving mobility, enhancing safety, and strengthening connections between neighborhoods. This is funded through an ATP, Active Transportation, grant, The project also incorporates native landscaping and stormwater features to support sustainability and water quality. It's a great path if you haven't been out there already. Telegraph Road. Telegraph Road resurfacing project is a major infrastructure investment that improves safety and accessibility along one of Ventura's most heavily traveled corridors. Spanning from Ashwood Avenue to Hill Road, the project includes new pavement, ADA-compliant sidewalks and curb ramps, upgraded pedestrian crossings, buffered bike lanes, and enhanced median landscaping to support safer multimodal travel. Funded through SB1 gas tax revenues and Measure O, this effort will extend the life of the roadway while better serving residents, businesses, and visitors. This project is substantially completed and has been open to the public for a couple months now.

Next slide.

City Hall Council Chambers. I'm assuming you guys will go back in there soon. AD improvement project will upgrade the historic facility to meet current accessibility standards, ensuring it is usable and welcoming for all members of the public. Improvements include modifications to the Council Chambers dais, installation of a chair lift, accessible restroom upgrades, and reconfiguration of interior spaces such as the kitchenette to provide compliant passive travel. This project reflects the city's commitment to removing barriers and providing inclusive access to public meetings and services. Next slide. surface point phase to the surface point phase two project builds on the success of the original managed retreat project completed in 2013. This phase two project will remove vulnerable vulnerable shoreline infrastructure damage by erosion and rebuild the coastline using dunes native vegetation and a buried cobble burn to provide long term protection. In addition, the project enhances public amenities with a new multi-use path, parking lot with attendant station, public art, lighting, drainage improvements, landscaping, and electrical vehicle chargers. The project is funded by a $16.2 million grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy. The project supports a more resilient, accessible, and sustainable coastline for the Ventura community. The new path opened a few months back, and the new parking lot was just opened a few weeks ago.

Next project.

The ocean outfall project is a key component of the Ventura WaterPure program. The outfall provides a reliable way to manage, concentrate from the advanced water purification facility and handle excess wet weather flows. The pipeline extends from Marina Park beneath the ocean floor and connects to onshore pipelines along Anchors Way and Harbor Boulevard. Drilling was completed in 2025. These improvements support Ventura's long-term goal of creating a sustainable, drought-resilient local water supply while protecting water quality. We also added a park there that's pretty neat if you haven't been out there to see that.

Next slide.

Calorama Street emergency storm drain, a city contractor replaced and realigned a large section of a failed 44-inch storm drain pipe on Calorama Street between Church Street and Poli. The old failed pipe, which ran underneath private property, was abandoned. The new pipe is aligned on city right-of-way and eliminates any future impacts.

Last slide.

So this is the last project I'm going to hit. The Pierpont Neighborhood Stormwater Lift Station at Weymouth Lane. A new stormwater lift station was constructed at the end of Weymouth Lane to replace the existing aging lift station constructed in the 60s. The lift station pumps stormwater from the low-lying Pierpont Lanes between Cornwall and Greenock out to the beach. The new lift station has a lower profile than the old lift station, as shown in the picture, and replaces the steep stairway with an ADA ramp, improving accessibility to the beach from the end of the lane.

so with that i'm going to go ahead and turn it over to chandra to talk more about the conformance review the staff has used the project description and justification and linked each project to specific elements goals policies and actions in the 2025 general plan and for those projects that are in the local coastal program we've linked those to the 1989 comprehensive plan. The projects included for the Planning Commission's review are only the work plan projects. Grant and unfunded projects are not included in this review. There's an exhibit A to each resolution that identifies the project and links them to the general plan goals, policies, and actions, as well as the 1989 comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions, which have been set up to address potential conflicts of interest. The next step after Planning Commission's action would be the City Council conducting the public hearing and adoption of the new general plan. That concludes staff's presentation, and we are here for questions.

Thank you. All right, we'll now open up for questions. Are there any questions from the commission at this time? Okay, we'll go Commissioner Weniger, then Commissioner Comden.

Thank you for your report. The Cabrillo Street improvement, is that going to help relieve the river that goes there every time we have a flood?

The Cabrillo Village multi-use path.

Oh, that's Cabrillo Village. What is the, I'm sorry, what is the street that always floods around Arundel?

Oh, channel? Channel, sorry. Channel Drive? Yeah.

When are we going to fix that?

That's a good question. I mean, that's not a current project in the CIP, and none of the projects I was discussing here would relieve that. I mean, that whole neighborhood doesn't have a storm drain system. It all floods down to Channel Drive, and I'm not aware of any current plans to alleviate that flooding on Channel Drive.

It's such a hazard. People have fun and play in it, but it really is a hazard, and it's a health hazard as well. The other question I have is, when are we going to be in our new offices? When are we going to be in our new?

In the back in the council chambers? The first council meeting is going to be April 14th in there. So I'm not sure when the planning commission meeting will be there next. But I know the next city council meeting on April 14th. Well, not the next one, but April 14th, they'll be in the new chambers. And so our April meeting will actually be in the chambers.

Yay, yay, yay, yay. Thank you. Commissioner Compton.

Thank you, Chair. It's great to see some of the progress on these projects coming to fruition, so good work. Is it appropriate for me to ask questions? Can I ask questions about attachment A, the... Plan? Yeah, it looks like there's about 40 different, and I won't go through all of them, but since we rarely see you, now's a great time. Is it appropriate for me to ask questions about this?

I think now is the time to ask questions on any of the things before us.

Okay, very good. Police headquarters, $3.5 million next year. That's their long-term location. They're not going to be going anywhere anytime soon, right?

Correct. As far as, yeah, the one on Portola and, yeah, yes. Okay, very good.

Whereas we do have $2.6 million going to an interim fire station number seven, and that's... because there's a new facility that's gonna be planned and built somewhere down the road?

Yeah, so the interim fire station number seven is the project at Seward and Alessandro. Yeah. And so, yes, that is the location of it, and that's the, I think you're looking at the measure of funding for it. I think there's other funding that's dedicated to that project.

Okay. City Hall Terracotta, million and a half dollars in 2029. It's an old structure that terracotta does. Is this an ongoing issue, and is it getting better, or is it getting worse?

The project is currently in design, and we're trying to wrap up the design, and there may be some shifting around of some priorities in there. And the project also replaces the terracotta, but also does some rain proofing to help improve the system overall. But it's an old structure, and it is something that we're always up against as far as maintaining the structure. Right.

uh main street uh store uh let's see uh streets main street bridge replacement 432 000 that sounds like a 1920 price um what do we get for for that i'm familiar with that project that's one of mine that is a match for a highway a grant that we received from caltrans right that's just the match for the design Oh, it's design.

So right now, currently, we're in the preliminary design phase slash environmental review process. Yeah. And so that is supposed to be complete in October of 26. And we'll be moving on to final design at that point. The overall project is around $130 million at this point.

And that's the overpass over the Ventura River.

Correct. And that's a full replacement of the bridge.

Because that bridge has outlived its useful license.

That bridge there was built in 1932. And it's considered scour critical by Caltrans. And they have a sufficiency rating. And it ranks low on that list. And they see that as a very high priority project. OK. And yeah, we're currently working on that.

OK. Let's talk about Waterpure for a minute. Wastewater plant, $23 million next year. Can you give us some update on timeline of water pier completion to the best of your knowledge?

I'm sorry, I don't even want to speculate on that. So I can talk to Waterpeer about that and get back to you on that.

I could answer that question. I work with the water department regularly. So the construction contract is expected to go to city council in June or July of this year. And then construction on the advanced water purification facility would proceed. uh based on that timeline and if the membrane bioreactor project stays on schedule it would be actually producing water in mid-2030 to be injected into the groundwater basin and then provided as potable water supply thereafter about four years from now yes okay good that's something there you go um those are my questions for now thank you

Vice Chair Zucker?

I just really appreciate the presentation and just want to say absolutely incredible work by the Public Works Department. I mean, seeing the list of some of these projects being completed and getting to see them on paper in the CIP over the last few years and actually you see them become real. I think folks often wonder, oh, what are my tax dollars going to? And it's just, I mean, the West Park, Surfers Point, just some really, really amazing work here. And I think some cities can get into really long timelines for public works projects and people wondering what's happening. And I really feel proud about the progress that's being made here. I just have one little question about the Portland loo. You know, we've got a Portland loo at Kellogg Park and, you know, going to that park with my kids often, you know, it could probably be used to be cleaned more often. It's so great to, I mean, I, yeah, as a dad of young kids who sometimes has bathroom emergencies, I very appreciate public bathrooms. But, you know, wondering kind of what's the, you know, what's kind of the cleaning or maintenance schedule for those Portland loos?

I believe it may fall into DVP's contract for cleaning, which they clean regularly. I know down at the pier and the parking structure where we have restrooms, believe it or not, those restrooms are cleaned three times a day. Wow. And so it's both the city and DVP doing both. So I'm going to assume that that restroom is going to be on one of the same time frames as far as cleaning this goes. Got it. Thank you.

Commissioner Abbey, then Commissioner Lagerquist.

I'm looking on this and I'm thinking the answer, before I ask the question, the answer is the state, it's a state project, not the city. California Street, off-ramp, Oak Street. I know that's something that the city wants to see, but that's not here on the RCIP because that's a state project?

The relocation of the off ramp is still a CIP project. It is in the project delivery process. It's in the early phase of preliminary design, just like Main Street Bridge. early stages of preliminary design and environmental review. We're actually, with Caltrans, they're circulating the environmental document and the draft project report. And we should, we will be going, we're gonna be putting it out to the public and having a public meeting in spring or early summer on that project.

Oh, that's good to hear.

And that's just at the early phase of the environmental and preliminary engineering.

Okay, that's, at some point it'll go on our five-year CIP?

it'll be it's it's gonna it's gonna we're gonna be looking for funding for the next phase of that project yeah and so it'll drop probably into a potential grant project because there could be some grant funding with that with the opening up of the of the multi-use we're trying to open up downtown to the beach there and move the off-ramp and that gives us an opportunity to have bicycles and pedestrian a better facility there so it could qualify for some active transportation type grants as well okay thank you jeff

Commissioner, I have a question.

And I apologize if I missed this, but is the conformance of these projects according to the old general plan or the new one?

It's the new general plan.

It is the new one?

Okay, great, thanks.

Commissioner McCarty.

I just wanted to add my kudos on the list of completed projects. I'm a frequent beneficiary or observer of a number of those projects. And I'm really pleased with how a lot of them turned out. So congratulations. Good job.

I have a few questions myself. With the wastewater, so it's roughly accounting for half of the total costs each year annually moving forward. And these values projected out for the next five years are in future value, future cost, future dollar amounts knowing.

I may let Miles answer that, but since it is an enterprise fund, it is budgeted for the future with rates, I believe.

Yes, that is correct. It's the actual amounts for each fiscal year as projected in each year based on the status of the projects.

And can you give, I mean, for our viewer out there, we have really old infrastructure. That's just a fact with our city being as old as it are. And with our wastewater plant, can you just speak a little bit to that? That's a $237 million investment project. Is there any information as to what that is, why that is? And then I have more questions on streets.

Yes, so the earlier this year the City Council approved the remainder of the construction contract for what's called the membrane bioreactor and ultraviolet light project. What that will do is replace several aspects of our water treatment system at the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility that were nearing the end of their useful life and at risk of critical failure structural failure if there was an earthquake or the like. And so it's converting it to a more advanced technology called membrane bioreactor that will also help the city meet certain water quality compliance standards and also have the added benefit of being that additional treatment before the water is then delivered to the advanced water purification facility. City Council Chambers, So it's a critical project that's needed.

City Council Chambers, And it's moving forward with construction actively at the wastewater plant and the cost is inclusive, the cost is the paying for the cost is provided by the current rates we don't anticipate rate increases for this or is that something that has not been discussed yet.

Yes, so water and wastewater. There was a water and wastewater rate process that was conducted last year and City Council adopted the proposed increases in December and so those will be implemented starting this July for the next five calendar years and those approved rates will be able to fund the membrane bioreactor project, the Ventura Water Peer Program, and other projects listed, water and wastewater projects listed in the Capital Improvement Program. Thank you.

And on the streets, how long, so when we do a resurfacing in Telegraph, I'm very excited that that's done because I drive it very, very frequently. How long do those resurfacing lasts? When do we anticipate having those come up again? Are those every five, ten years?

So we'll want to go in there Probably seven to ten years and look at a slurry. We want to try to catch the roads before they really start you know degrading and so if we can catch those early on to slurry them they'll last 20 to 25 years if we can keep the slurry going on it.

And thank you. And then on the resurfacing down, is the Alevas to, is that with where the current, the Johnson Drive extension is coming in and all of that road work?

Yeah, so there is, there's something in there about the Alevas between Victoria and Golf Course Drive that would match that, would lead into that new.

Because it's pretty terrible today. Like it's like undriveable. Like I frequent Beacon Coffee and it's, it's. It's challenging. And I know I even saw Public Works out there on that street doing just some base cover. Might even need to go back already. But thank you for answering those questions. I appreciate that. Those are my questions.

All right.

Commissioner Condon.

One more question. Half a million dollars for City Hall East boiler. Is that how we get heat still?

Yeah, that is how it still works. We are going to Council, I believe, the 28th to talk about electrification or an old gas boiler system. There's a huge cost difference there, so we'll be bringing that to Council to decide if we're going to replace it with the old system or an electrification system.

So right now it's gas that heats the water that provides the steam that heats the tubing? Correct. How electrified is this building?

We have solar on the roof here? We do not have solar on the roof. No solar.

No solar.

OK. Any other questions? OK. Seeing as there are no other questions at this time, I will open up to our public comments. City Clerk, are there any speakers on this item tonight?

Thank you, Chair. No public speakers.

okay thanks i'm going to bring it back to discussion but before we do we're going to take this discussion items in two different projects because we have a um we're going to ask vice chair zucker to step out because two of the projects under discussion tonight um fall within his um area of residency is that a great way to yeah commissioner zucker you could just briefly state your conflict before you step out of the room

Those two projects, yeah, I live within the radius of those projects to be considered a conflict of interest. So I'll be recusing myself, and then I'll come back for the rest.

Perfect. Thank you. Chair?

Yes. So is it just for the two that we have to recuse ourselves, or for any that are listed?

Thank you for the question. So staff went through a review of all the projects and identified anywhere there was a potential conflict and discussed those with commissioners as needed. And so after that review, the only two that were identified as potential conflicts were for Commissioner Zucker for the two projects listed.

Well, okay, but I live in Ondolondo, and it's on here for the street resurfacing.

So that's considered as a maintenance project, the street surfacing, and it's not subject to conflict?

Yeah, so regular street resurfacing maintenance would not disqualify you from participating. Good question, thank you.

Okay, so then we're gonna take two separate projects, which is, they're both wastewater, I believe, wastewater, WW141078, which is a transfer station, and then WW161097, which is a wastewater, oh, sorry, I just had it here. wastewater seaside transfer station. So if there is any deliberation on those two items. Seeing none.

I move to approve those two items.

Thank you. Comden with a motion to approve. I second. Commissioner Lagerquist with a second. We have a motion and a second.

for those two items. I have a question. So are we about to approve the overall motion? Not yet.

OK. Just these two items. Just two items from the project plan. City clerk?

Yeah. So there's a motion to approve project numbers WW14-1078 and WW16-1097. Commissioner McCarty? Yes. Commissioner Winninger? Yes. Commissioner Lagerquist?

Yes.

Commissioner Abbey? Yes. Commissioner Comden? Yes.

Vice Chair Zucker recused himself. Chair Boussa?

Yes. Six ayes, motion carries.

All right, we can ask Commissioner or Vice Chair Zucker to come back in. Just a comment for staff. I may recommend that you do Main Street Bridge replacement design. Because I thought I had the same comment. I was like, this can't cost a half a million dollars. But it's nice knowing that it's the design element of that. Just for the public, if anybody pulls this up. Yeah, I get that. All right, we're going to take the rest of the items then and take a motion on the floor to approve the remainder of the CIP project plan.

I move to approve.

Commissioner Comden, motion to approve.

I'll second. I have a correction to the resolution. Is now the time for that?

My apologies.

Actually, we should take it back to deliberation.

Deliberation on the rest of the project plan. Commissioner McCarty.

Okay. Page one of the resolution, the very last line says the CIP plan is in conformance with the 2025 Ventura General Plan. For some reason I'm not privy to, we've gotten away from our naming convention on the general plans. They are no longer. named in accordance with the year they were approved but the new general plan is called the 2050 general plan and it's not the 2025 general plan i don't agree with the nomenclature but that's the way it is so just to be correct it should read 2050 ventura general plan yes so if you could include that in your um motion that would be great

The other deliberation on the remaining of the project plan, the CIP project plan.

I just had a quick comment.

Yep, Commissioner Abbey.

It seemed like in prior years, so the exercise that we're going through is we're not approving these. These are items that have gone through city council and so forth. We're just trying to say that the general plan that these proposed CIP capital improvement plans are in conformance with our 2050 general plan. And it just seems that in the past we had a document. I think there was a document

Yeah, it was sideways.

It was kind of hard to read. But I'm not saying it's a big problem. I'm just saying it was easier to do that comparison in past years. So I'm just making a point for the next time we go through this that we have an easier document. And it's easy to say, this is the project. Oh, and that falls under the X category of the general plan. Anyway, but I do also want to give my thanks to Public Works for all the work that they've done on this, a tremendous amount of work. Thank you.

Having said that, I again.

A motion to adopt the resolution findings of the 2027-2031 capital improvement plans.

I so move with the correction that Commissioner. About 2050, the last line on the resolution. I'll second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

OK, we have a motion to approve staff's recommendation with the additional stipulation to correct the name of the general plan within the capital approval plan to general plan 2050. Commissioner McCarty? Yes. Commissioner Winninger?

Yes.

Commissioner Largoquist?

Yes.

Commissioner Abbey? Yes. Commissioner Comden? Yes. Vice Chair Zucker? Yes. Chair Boussa?

Yes.

Seven ayes, motion carries.

All right, thank you. Thank you, staff. All right, we are now at Planning Commission Communications. Are there any communications from the commission at this time? No, seeing as there are none, we'll now move on to staff communications. Is there any communications?

Good evening. I just wanted to report out on the director's hearing from this month. We had a regular meeting earlier this week on Monday, March 16th at 4 PM. Originally, there was an item that was noticed as part of this hearing, Thompson Court Apartments. that item was actually moved up to the Planning Commission by me the director and so you'll see that at a future hearing it's likely to come in April but it may be at a later date we're working with the developer to figure out what date works best for their team and our schedule as well and so that doesn't happen very often but from time to time projects do get kicked up from the director's hearing to the planning commission, it's at my discretion. And based on a number of factors that we'll highlight in that meeting, I felt that it would be prudent to come to the planning commission. So always appreciate your review of these types of projects and the ones that you did this evening as well. There was one item that was continued to a date certain to the next meeting. It is a project on 1279 Meadow Street. It's a 14-unit multifamily residential development. There was a noticing error, so they needed to move to the next meeting, unfortunately. And then, The one item that was heard at that meeting was a new project, actually a changed project. It had been approved previously at a director's hearing and came back for a new approval at 1926 East Thompson Boulevard. And this is in Midtown. It was a request for a coastal development permit, major design review, and associated density bonus waivers and concession. and inclusionary housing plan for 19 unit multifamily residential development. This is, there's a, was a smoke shop on the site and it's been vacant for quite some time. I think previously it was a gas station before that. And so that project was approved. And we had a few public comments, nothing major, but always helpful when the neighbors come with concerns and the developer gets up and addresses them head on. helps to address any concerns and that's something that did happen in the meeting which is really nice to see happen in real time that's not always the case but that was it for that meeting and then just to give you an idea of what's coming up at future meetings at our next meeting for planning commission that is going to be wednesday april 22nd 2026 very, very excited that it will be in the council chambers. So say goodbye to these gorgeous tables and thank you to all the staff that's made it possible for us to be in this room. It is really challenging the clerk as well as legal or I.T. and facility is just for making this happen. We do have other meetings in here, but this is a particularly challenging meeting to have in this room for the tech and audio. Today was the first day they actually fixed the audio in this room, so you may notice that you can't really whisper near these microphones. But it really, it's been very challenging, so I appreciate you sticking with it. We are going to have a much more accessible council chamber that will look fairly similar to how it did before, but with some improvements to make it accessible to all. So we're really excited to have that. At our next meeting right now, we have three items on the agenda. Program 19 of our housing element, which is permanent supportive housing. So we're looking at updating our regulations to meet state law requirements for where those types of housing facilities can occur. State law requires that anywhere with residential or industrial be allowed to have supportive housing, and so we're going to keep it very simple and just comply with state law. There's also an application at the Arco Car Wash. This is at 605 South Mills Road, and it's a request for the construction of an addition to the existing car wash building. And so there's a major variance request for reduction in parking requirements and a minor variance request for a rear yard setback. And we also have a project at 760 South Seaward, and this is a coastal development permit. This is. I believe. It may be tentatively on the calendar at this point. And then depending on the calendar, we may see the Thompson core departments. It's likely to come back in May instead, but just announcing that it's possible that that is going on that agenda. In May, we will be talking about a tree protection ordinance. The city council adopted an emergency tree protection ordinance to stop trees from being removed in sensitive habitat areas. And this would be a formal adoption of a regulation that's a little bit more expansive. One of the things that this brings up as well is that we are working on objective design standards. These standards are going through a number of workshops that will actually occur at design review committee. But ultimately the approval of the objective design standards will come through planning commission this fall. So you'll see those at a later date after workshops with the community. The first workshop with the community is at our next DRC meeting, which is on April 1st, Wednesday, April 1st. And so you can attend as a member of the public, but do let us know so we can make sure there aren't too many of you in the room just to avoid any Brown Act issues. But as attendees of workshops, you are able to attend as a resident. And again, you'll see those you'll see those objective design standards come before you this fall. We will also include pretty extensive landscaping requirements in those objective design standards that will kind of pool together all the different requirements that we have related to landscaping, related to water use, fire issues, types of species that are allowed and how much and where. So I just wanted to point that out. One other item that's coming to the planning commission in May is likely to be the interim zoning ordinance. What this will do is help bridge the gap between the general plan adoption and then a future new zoning ordinance so right now not everything matches so we'll need to adjust the zoning ordinance so that it can be used to comply with the new general plan and so that's something that we'll bring back it's pretty significant items we'll try to keep the agenda light otherwise but you'll be seeing that fairly soon And just to give you an idea of directors hearing, we do have a number of items for directors hearing in April, which I'll talk to you about at the April Planning Commission meeting. And that includes the ministry apartments, which I mentioned earlier, a 14 unit multifamily project, the harbor groundwater monitoring wells, the relocation of Ventura County Christian School, a coastal development permit for the Hansen residents, On Camden, we potentially, also the Kittieland Animal Boarding Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for 1049 Dover Lane. So quite a few things at Director's hearings, so I'll have a lot to report next month. And with that, I'm available for questions if you have any, but otherwise, have a lovely evening and thank you.

Sure.

Commissioner Comden?

Director, I have two questions. 211 Thompson, can you tell us that I think a resolution has been found. Do we know of the disposition of the developer? Are they moving forward quickly or do you have any input on that? And also the Anastasi project at Harbor and Seaward, is there any update on that?

As far as Anastasi, obviously it was approved here. I don't believe they have come in for building permit yet, but I can report back. They have not. I can report back more at the next meeting. I can check in with the developer and see if they have any updates. And then 2-11, the lawsuit was settled and the developer is moving forward. They came in with some minor changes to address the settlement. the project will get a little bit um uh will be lowered slightly um and um I believe there's a slight reduction in units um and I can report back in detail but they are moving forward with building permits and do anticipate um trying to break ground I believe in 2026 if not early 27. okay thank you

All right, seeing as they're, good bless you.

Chair Boussa, I think there was one more question.

Yes, Commissioner Whitaker.

yes so basically the drc meeting april 1st is going to be a public workshop um i believe there's one other item before that they'll address um mckenna coffee and followed by an open workshop with the community with our consultants john kaliske architects to talk through this is round one of this portion of the public workshops. We've had a number of workshops at DRC meetings in the past to talk more generally about a vision statement for the standards and guiding principles. And now at this point, we're diving into the framework for the project. That's correct, yes. And then once we actually have a draft of the documents, that's when we'd start to do conversations with the planning commission. So we would have a conceptual conversation with the planning commission and then an adopting meeting. And I believe we're scheduled for September. No, there have been a number of issues with tree removal in sensitive habitat area in the city. And ultimately, the city council has really directed us to do tree protection, both on public and private property, and to enhance the amount of trees. Also expand one of the items in our general plan is also to expand the amount of tree replacement. So if you take a tree out, you need to replace. But there was some removal of trees at a site on Vista Del Mar in December that is in an overwintering site for monarch butterflies. And so I think that was not necessarily the only prompt, but something that kind of pushed that forward quickly.

Any other questions from the Commission? Seeing as there are no further business, this meeting of the Planning Commission is adjourned.

Thank you.