Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

City Clerk, are we waiting for any others? Do we know?

We have quorum, but I just wanted to Are we?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

all right we will get started here good evening I would like to call to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission from Wednesday April the 22nd the time is 530 the City of Ventura acknowledges that we are gathered on unceded Chumash land the full City Council adopted land acknowledgement is available on our city website mr. clerk may we please have roll call

Thank you, Chair Boussa. Commissioner McCarty? Here. Commissioner Windegger?

Here.

Commissioner Lagerquist is absent. Commissioner Abbey?

Here.

Commissioner Comden?

Here.

Vice Chair Zucker?

Here.

Chair Boussa? Here. Six members are present. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. All right, this is 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. Speakers will have up to three minutes. Mr. Clerk, are there any public communications?

Thank you, Chair. We don't have any public communications, but a note to anybody online, you can raise your hand if you want to speak on an item. So that there are no public communications.

Thank you. All right. Moving on to consent. We have four items on consent for tonight's agenda. As a reminder, commissioners may ask questions, make comments, or register a no vote on a consent item before a motion is made for the entire consent agenda without having to pull items separately. With that, we have four items on the agenda. Two on continuance are minutes as well as in lieu fees. Are there any questions from commission at this time? And I will kindly ask us to use our technology again, because I'm getting used to it now that we're back in the chambers, if possible. Help my head swivel here. Yes, Commissioner McCarty.

I have a potential change to consent item number one, approval of the minutes. And I'd like to pull number three in lieu fee update for discussion.

Seeing as we have action potential on the minutes in LUFI, I want to just quickly go to the two items on continuance. Are there any questions on the continuance items?

No.

Okay. If not, then I would entertain a motion to move the items, the continuance items on consent.

I move.

Second?

I'll second.

Thank you.

Chair Boussa, could we announce those for anybody who's here for them?

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Whitaker.

Yes, the two items on continuance are project 250780, request for coastal development permit, lot line adjustment, a major design review and associated density bonus waivers and concessions and inclusionary housing plan for Thompson Core Apartments located at 1655 East Thompson Boulevard. And the continuance notice is attached here and would be moved to the May 27th meeting. The second project on item for continuance is project 261049, program 19, supportive housing. And the purpose of that item is for planning commission to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to authorized by the city of Ventura's municipal code, establishing code amendments pursuant to recent state law on housing options for the homeless. And this would also be continued to the May 27th meeting.

Thank you.

So we have a motion and a second on the continuance of those two.

We have a motion and a second on those two continuous items. You may now enter your vote. All votes have been entered. Six ayes. Motion carries.

Thank you. And if it pleases the commission we'll we'll take the minutes next. Commissioner McCarty your potential amendment to the minutes.

Yes. So on the draft minutes from the last me from the March meeting formal item number four exception no exception for the residents located at 192 Raya Avenue it's listed that the motion was carried 7 to 0 to my recollection and correct me if I'm wrong Commissioner Abbey voted no on that item that's correct I was going to mention that as well So yeah, so that should be changed. Commissioner Abbey was a no, and the motion carried six to one.

Thank you, Commissioner McCarty. That is correct. We can have that amendment made to the draft minutes from staff. Yes. Excellent. OK, then let's take the draft minutes from the last meeting as our next item with the edit to correct item four. judgment on that, to a six to one. Do I have a motion on the minutes?

I'll move to approve.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as with those edits from Commissioner McCarty. You can now enter your vote.

waiting on one more vote reminder we have to lock hit the lock vote button is it me does it turn blue when you've yeah remind us again yeah it turns blue when you've hit it okay they're all entered now thank you apologies six eyes the motion carries all right and the commissioner McCarty item on the in lieu fees. So before we get started.

Before we get started I'd like to recuse myself from this item just out of an abundance of caution. My employer cause does advocacy around affordable housing and just to avoid any kind of perception of conflict of interest there.

Thank you Commissioner Zucker. All right. Commissioner McCarty.

Okay. Well, first of all, I have a question for staff. We did this very exercise back on August 27, 2025, the last time we updated the in lieu fees. And at that time, it was a formal item on our agenda. And the recommendation from staff was recommend City Council to adopt the updated inclusionary housing program in new fee amounts so we were reviewing the fees and recommending to City Council adoption of those fees Tonight however it appears the update appears as a consent item and the recommendation is receive and file so I'm confused as to why it appears that way on tonight's agenda instead of as it did in last year's agenda.

Good evening. Thank you, Commissioner McCarthy. My name is Rachel West. I am a management analyst in community development on the housing services team. So the in lieu fee is a consent item before you this evening because last year when we presented it to Planning Commission as part of the recommendation, it was to include the for the next several years that this item go towards City Council as a consent item during that Planning Commission last year you guys had requested to also see it as a consent item for Planning Commission so it is no longer a formal item until 2028 to 2029 and that is because there's not a drastic change in the market if there is a drastic change in the market then we would bring it forth as a formal item again but that is what was approved last year during Planning Commission we did we did approve that it would be consent item for going forward that is correct yes I believe the recommendation was specifically a consent item for City Council and then an amendment was made at Planning Commission that you guys would like to see it as well just as a consent item

okay if if i have concerns about the new proposed in lieu fee how do i make those concerns public if it's just a consent and receive and file for us we can definitely discuss the concerns this evening and staff will make note of it and include it in our recommendation towards city council okay um i'd like to do that now if i may Is it possible to bring up one of the attachments, one of the material attachments, the 2026 in lieu fee update?

Yes, one second. I'm going to drop that attachment into our folder.

Can I ask a question as well?

Yes.

in line with the timing was that I believe that exercise was to approve the new policy around the the housing the inclusionary housing ordinance with the new in Luffy it was a new policy is that my remembering this correct and what we're having before us tonight is an update into the the formulaic number approach to the in lieu fees and that formulaic approach was reviewed, established, came to this board, came to the city council, was approved as the methodology and approach, and then the subsequent updates would be applying that formula moving forward, just giving us the updated numbers. Is that my...

That is correct. So there was nothing changing to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance itself, just the annual update for the in lieu fee was changing and that general formula, because in the 2024-2025 numbers, there was that in-depth analysis that Kaiser-Marsen Associates had done with the market study. And then for last year's update of 2025, 2026, it was just that averaging of the how the rental market had changed between the years, as well as how the average of the for sale prices had changed in the city of Ventura. And so because there's not a drastic change in the market, that's why the in-depth study hadn't been conducted and it was just utilizing those averages. And that's also why it was voted to move forward with it just being a consent item unless there is a large drastic change in the market for some reason. And then we'll also revisit it after that five-year mark in 2028, 2029 to have that in-depth analysis done again. And we are working on pulling up attachment B, which is the formula.

OK, thank you. It's gonna be a little tough to see unless we can blow it up. Okay, so actually the first page, yeah. Is it possible to blow that up a little bit more? I'm mainly concerned with like the first five columns on the left. In any case, I'll get started. That's good, that's good. Okay, I wanna make sure. So this is the exact same argument that I made last year. I have the same concerns. The way the fees were calculated were based on monthly median, Prices as you can see in the third column from the left We have the months we have the years we have the monthly median prices Scroll down just slightly So we can see the one we keep going down to through through December. Okay, right there. I So the numbers we're concerned with are January through December of 2025. And what's done here is there are two calculations being made. There is a median annual sales price in column one, two, three, four to the left, fourth from the left. And then sixth from the left, there's an average annual sales price. And the bottom line, at the very bottom, the median annual sales price is calculated as $861,250. The average annual sales price is $870,583. So what's being done is KMA, the consultant, is taking two averages of averages. So the averages that they're looking at are the median monthly sales prices through the months of January through December in 2025. In column four, they take the median of those 12 median prices and come up with $861,000. In column six, they take the mean of 12 mediums and come up with $870,000. So any time you take an average of a set of averages that are not weighted, you're introducing bias. And so the figure that KMA chose to use for their new in lieu fee is the $870,000 figure, which is the mean of 12 unweighted medians, January through December. Taking a mean of unweighted medians is a pretty meaningless exercise in mathematics. It doesn't really tell us much. Column four, taking the median of 12 medians, is not much less biased. but it's less biased in the sense that it gives less weight to the outliers, to the low figures in the range and the high figures in the range. So even though both of these calculations are flawed, in that what KMA should have done was taken the raw data and not just the medians of each month. So each is flawed, but a good argument can be made that the less flawed of the two calculations is taking the median annual sales price of the 12 median monthly sales prices. As I mentioned before, it kind of gives less weight to the outliers, the very low Medians and very high medians. So for some reason unexplained, KMA chose to use in the proposed in lieu fee, they chose the average, the mean annual sales price, which works out to an increased percentage of 1.13%. And that's what is going forward to city council, increasing the in lieu fee by 1.13%. As I mentioned before, arguably less biased would be to take the median annual sales price, which by this calculation shows a decrease of about half a percent. So what we are, the burden we're putting on developers now is an increase of 1%. When a good argument could actually be made that a better way to do it would be to use the percentage change which reduces the in lieu fee by half a percent. which may be very amenable to some. So that is my concern. I think we are giving a blanket and somewhat blind approval to a number that we weren't given a very good rationale for approving. So I disagree with the conclusions done by KMA, and given The analysis we have here, I would argue that the proper in lieu fee should not be a raise of 1.13%, but a decrease of 0.46%. So that's my concern.

Commissioner Condon.

Thank you, Chair. While we're on the topic, The recommendation is a little over 1% increase. I'm curious to know, do most developments, the eventuality is, do they use the in lieu fee or do they build on site? And if you have kind of a reference on that, I have a comment.

Yes, thank you for that question. The majority of developers do usually just build on site with the units. We did have one project last year in 2025 that was a four cell modular home that utilized the in lieu fee for that one unit. It was only eight units, so it was a very small project. And then we did have one this year that utilized the in lieu fees for kind of a fractional part for both the very low and low, which ended up to being about 1.35 in units, so one full unit and 0.35 that utilized it this year. And in the last few years, those were the only two that have actually utilized the in lieu fee.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, the reason I, oh, please.

I did just want to comment on the methodology. So, obviously, there's many different ways we can look at, you know, all of this data. And using the mean of medians, which is always a little tongue twister, is a pretty common strategy for aggregating this type of data and really understanding kind of what it really means. And what I think the key reasons why we use this and why Kaiser Marston uses this across the board with all of their clients is it really reduces outlier impact. Like if you took overall average of all the sale prices, the, this is really less sensitive to those extreme values. So you're kind of cutting off like the, you know, the $12 million homes and then the much cheaper, let's say land sales or, um, you know, some of the fire sales that occur, um, or, um, you know, things that get sold by the bank. And then this is also really balancing kind of the multiple groups that we have in the city of different zip codes, different neighborhoods, and particularly different property types. So obviously a single family, versus a condo versus an apartment building are very different items as well with very different even number of units within them. And so this is really gonna be more representative of the data. And I totally understand what you're saying, but this is the best way that we can kind of balance all of those varying issues to get ourselves to kind of a clearer picture of what's happened with prices in Ventura.

Thank you. The reason I ask that is because I don't know what the disposition of the city is, but my personal opinion is we want to try and disincentivize in lieu fee usage so that all market rate or all forms of housing are adjacent to one another as opposed to redlined in various areas of the city, et cetera. So I'm not adverse. I mean, 1%, 1.13% is not egregious in my mind considering building costs now are approaching 700 plus dollars, maybe even higher for premium. And so I understand the methodology used, and I do understand Commissioner McCarty's comment about the difference between median and mean and averages. This somewhat makes sense to me. I do think it is a good exercise for us to take a close look at this and be able to ask questions. So it perpetually being a consent item may not have been our best vote, and I don't know if we can unwind that for the future, but that's my comment on it.

Thank you, Commissioner Comden. Any other comments from Commission? and then do we have do we have any public comments on this item thank you chair we don't have any public comments on item three okay All right. Back to the commission for deliberation. I just I just want to say that I appreciate the the did you have a comment on the other side. I didn't see anything. I just want to say I appreciate the dialogue and conversation and I definitely I too I also hear you Commissioner McCarty on on the approach I think before us tonight is the update based off of the methodology that was already adopted and concerns on the methodology that was adopted I think again to follow up with with staff to see how that can be um raised continuously through the process and and with Council um in our in our future iterations of this I I do say it you know speaking to Commissioner commons a comment around disincentivizing and just even understanding kind of the in Luffy um program in greater detail in terms of its Return in terms of what it's bringing back into creating future housing if that's that's the intent of it So although this is more of a routine approval. I too would like to see this commission have more visibility or just more education if you will into The fees to date what those fees are being used for how they're being applied and if that's in a back on an item on the agenda or doing a directors update and but I agree that that would be good for us to have as a commission. Any other comments? If none, then I would entertain

Can I clarify? Yes. So would we be moving forward with the recommendation to receive and file, or would we like to add in that we'd like to see the entire in lieu fee annual update as a formal item or just adding in that general in lieu fee, not percentage or calculation update, but just a general informational item that shares kind of how many in lieu fees with the pricing was and things like that.

That pleases the commission.

I would like to see it revert to a formal item. Because if I'm sitting in the seat again at this time next year, I will probably bring up the exact same issue unless the methodology changes. KMA gets their information from Redfin, and they pull up monthly median prices. All they need for each month is one other number and that's N equals the number of homes sold in that month and they can do a much more accurate much more precise calculation and I'm I'm I'm surprised that number one. I'm surprised they don't do that because it's easy. I think it's easy to get that data Perhaps a suggestion to them from staff about having weighted Averages instead of just medians would be good.

So anyway long answer I'd like to see it as a formal item once again one way that this might I think add to the conversation is that we have this be a formal item and Combine it with the annual progress report for housing so that we talk about this in the larger context of our housing progress over the year so there will also be a you know, a kind of a lot of additional data to discuss. And then it can be kind of the full presentation on the state of housing. Generally, we submit that to HCD and it's due April every year. So we could have this be an annual April item with this item and annual progress report together. And then it's formal on the agenda each time.

That sounds good. That sounds good to me too, Chair.

Excellent. Just to clarify, this year the APR is coming to you in June, but in the future we'll have it sooner. So that'll also give you basically an immediate notification of that information as we're giving it to HCD.

Excellent all right that I think the motion would be to move forward with approval of the minutes with Future updates on the annual or on the in lieu policy to be included with the annual housing update

Chair, we did take the vote on consent item one. This is a receive and file and maybe the attorney De La Vega wants to talk more about it, but I don't.

Yes, I don't believe the scope of this agenda item contemplates a motion on the item. So I would veer away from that. We just had a discussion about it. There's a suggestion for staff to incorporate the Luffy discussion in the future. I think that's probably sufficient without a motion.

Excellent. Thank you so much for that clarification. Appreciate that. All right. As this is a receive and file.

Thank you.

OK. Let me find where I am in my notes here. Do we still vote on the receiving file for the minutes? Sorry, for the in lieu fee, the receiving file?

Sorry, what about it? I missed that first part. I apologize.

Is there still a formal vote for the consent item? No, the receiving file.

There's no need for a formal vote.

Perfect.

OK. Moving on to our formal item then for the evening, the preliminary review of the proposed redevelopment at 760 South Seaward. I'll invite staff to present at this time. We need to go get Commissioner Zucker. Thank you, staff. THANK YOU, STAFF. YES.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR BUSA, PLANNING COMMISSION. WELCOME BACK TO THE HISTORIC COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I'M GRANT WHITE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. AND THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE BEFORE YOU IS THE 760 SEAWOOD AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY REVIEW. THIS IS PROJECT 25-0802, A MAJOR DESIGN AND REVIEW COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND USE PERMIT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

So the purpose of this meeting is being held at the applicant's request ahead of an application completeness determination. Tonight staff is not making a recommendation. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an early temperature check on the project. The overall goal of tonight's meeting is to obtain the planning commission's feedback and input on the project prior to further project analysis and resubmittals. The project site is located south of the Midtown community within the Preble community as described in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. The general character of the Preble community is considered transitional, an area where little land is available for new development, but where private redevelopment potential exists. The subject site is bounded by U.S. Highway 101, South Seward Avenue, and Alessandro Drive. North of the site is the former lemon packing plant that is being currently proposed as a residential community. East of the site is the newly constructed Marriott Residence Inn. Again, south of the site is U.S. Highway 101, and South Seward Avenue is directly west of the site. The underlying zoning for the parcel is commercial tourist oriented as provided by municipal code section or chapter 24.240. The commercial tourist oriented zone prescribes use types and other regulations for the parcel shown in yellow on your right hand of your screen. The commercial tourist oriented zone prioritizes safe, efficient and well integrated visitors serving commercial and recreational uses. It applies clear development standards to ensure high quality site design and operations that meet visitor needs and protect coastal visitor serving areas by directly incompatible uses to more appropriate zoning districts. Again, the project before you tonight is a request for a preliminary review of a coastal development permit, major design review and use permit for two drive-through establishments and one quick serve restaurant building on a 3.37 acre site in the commercial tourist oriented zone with the land use designation of commercial tourist tourist oriented within the coastal zone. Building number one is the westernmost building and is the largest at a size of roughly 5,100 square feet. Building number two is in the center. It's roughly 2,500 square feet. And building number three is the easternmost building and that is 3,000 square feet in size. Again, the project site is located within the coastal zone with a land use destination of planned commercial tourist oriented. Properties within this designation have one or more of the following characteristics. It is a strategic location, it fronts a major thoroughfare, it is located in or near an existing activity center, and the site needs to be well buffered. While the 2050 general plan has not yet been certified by the California Coastal Commission and does not govern the coastal zone entitlements in lieu of the 1989 comprehensive plan, it does provide an important context for the city's current vision and long-term goals for this area. The 2050 general plan was adopted by the city council in October of last year. And the 2050 journal plan includes the following applicable goals relevant to this project. Land use goal number five, to establish high quality architecture and building design that reflects Ventura's unique beach town identity. And land use goal number 29, maintain Pierpont as a vibrant neighborhood center with attractive coastal oriented services. So the applicant is requesting to utilize the dining establishment fast service drive up, which is provided in municipal code section 24.475. This land use requires a use permit within the commercial tourist oriented zone. The Use the fast service drive up or drive through use shall be required to meet all the following development and operational standards. These include setbacks, drive up lanes or queuing lane standards, circulation and parking standards, landscaping, lighting and trash storage areas. To date, the application of the project is generally and mostly consistent with the regulations for the drive-through or the drive-up regulations. There are two outstanding development issues, one being the trash enclosures. The drive-through establishment regulations require that the trash storage areas to be designed and integrated into the buildings, as this project does not currently provide that. And secondly, Current proposed drive-through lanes are about 10 feet from the southern property line, which is the US Highway 101 or the Caltrans off-ramp. 20 feet is required by the development regulations. Earlier this year, on January 7th, the Design Review Committee reviewed this project. Ultimately, the Design Review Committee continued this project to a date uncertain for the applicant to address the DRC's recommendations. That motion carried unanimously to a four-hour vote. The DRC's recommendations are summarized. One being the traffic stacking of the drive-through lanes. The DRC expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the drive-through queuing lanes and the potential for vehicles stacking to spill out onto the internal driveway access points and therefore creating conflicts for onsite circulation. Secondly, the DRC recommended that the applicant explore combining the buildings. The DRC felt that the three separate buildings could be consolidated or combined into one unified structure, providing better active pedestrian realm and reduce the dominance of drive-through lanes. Third, the DRC recommended the applicant explore the incorporation of a rooftop restaurant or dining area. Given the size proximity to the coast and its relationship to the US Highway 101, they felt a rooftop activation could be beneficial to a rather underutilized building plan with potential coastal views. Fourth, the DRC recommended the architecture to reflect better beach surf eclectic culture. They found it inconsistent with the 1997 design guidelines, which call for, again, eclectic beach surf architecture. Fifth, the DRC recommended that the applicant consider reducing the building height and the possibility of a tower element. The DRC felt that a tower element could serve as a visual landmark, identifying the site and contributing to its sense of place. The DRC also recommended more community-friendly for local and tourist use. They expressed concern the project as designed is oriented primarily towards drive-through vehicular customers and did not adequately serve pedestrians, cyclists, or the broader local community. Seventh, the DRC recommended the applicant incorporate a substantial green buffer zone, including eucalyptus trees or similar large tree canopies, particularly along US Highway 101 and the Caltrans off ramp. The DRC also recommended and requested that the applicant provide site section drawings to better illustrate the relationship between the buildings and the slope topography. And lastly, the DRC recommended an outside area or a pet play area. This was... their recommendation for design for a community use such as a pet friendly space or a children's play area. As mentioned by the DRC and their comments, the 1997 design guidelines do introduce this particular site and the introduction to Seward area in the PeerCon community. And the design guidelines note this as a distinctly unique neighborhood peppered with an eclectic mix of beach-type residential architecture, restaurants, motels, shops, and residences. The design guidelines was a community-based effort, and as a result, the views and wishes from this policy guideline was to retain and enhance the funky beach atmosphere, reinforce the village feeling, create better pedestrian-oriented spaces and activities, outdoor eating and seating areas, and develop eclectic beach-type architecture. Shown on the screen now is the applicant site plan. To the north is Alessandro Drive. South, again, is US Highway 101. And to the west is South Seward Avenue. The building number one is the westernmost building. And you can see the queuing lanes that wrap around it to the south. In the center is building number two, which is an additional drive-through establishment with queuing lanes taken from the south. And then on the easternmost is the quick serve uh building which um is again located on the western west right next to the marriott residence in something to note of this site it's tough to see from an aerial perspective but there is a significant slope and topography to the site at the northernmost portion of the site as shown on the screen it is about 50 feet of sea level And then as you go to the southernmost portion, there's about 25 feet grade differential. So it's about 25 feet at the lowest point of this parcel. This provides challenging topography between the off ramp and then Alessandro Drive and provides a little opportunity for activating the public ground by placing the proposed buildings close or onto the street fundages typically would be recommended by the design guidelines. Next slide. The images on your screen are just for some context of the site. On the left is a mid-sized vehicle just showing the grade differential as it abuts the Caltrans off ramp. And then the second image on your right is looking east towards the newly constructed Marriott Residence Inn. The site, again, has challenging topography as it's positioned between the Caltrans off ramp and the elevated public street and provides minimal opportunity to activate the public realm. As shown on the screen, site access is taken from Alessandro Drive. And then additionally highlighted in yellow, you can see the pedestrian walkway, which would connect to South Seward Avenue. And then it would kind of jog through straight lines through driveways, restaurant patios, drive-through entrance and exits, landscape fingers, making your way either west to east or east to west from the public realm onto the private development throughout the site, and then all the way to the residence end. So on the screen now is a building elevation of building number one. Again, this is the largest of the three buildings. This is with a footprint of about 5,100 square feet. This building provides roughly 2,000 square feet of dining area, a play area, restrooms, kitchen, meal prep area for the drive-through. This drive-through, again, the lanes wrap around the south of the building. Staff found that Building 1's massing is relatively simple in form, with an overall box-like design. There is minimal differentiation between the base, middle, and top, and articulation is concentrated on inward-facing facades rather than the public-facing elevations. This is a zoomed-in image of the applicant's site plan, just giving you an idea of the floor plan of the building. You can see the dining area, the outdoor patio area, or the dining area to the north, and the drive-through lane that wraps around the southern portion of this building. Shown on screen now is building number two. This is the smallest of the three buildings with a total footprint of roughly 2,500 square feet. This building provides approximately 1,400 square feet of dining area, kitchen drive-through area, cashier area, restrooms, and a utility area. Building number two is relatively, their massing is relatively simple in form with an overall rectangular massing design. However, this building does provide a stronger middle top expression with articulation focused at the main entrance. And again, this is a zoomed-in image of the applicant's site plan, giving you a little glimpse of what the floor plan looks like with a drive-through, and again, wrapping around the south of the building in an outdoor dining area provided north of the building. And the last of the three buildings is building number three. This is the second largest building with a total footprint of about 3,000 square feet. This provides approximately 1,000 square feet of dining area, a kitchen and prep area, cashier, restrooms, and a small office. Building number three's architectural design mirrors that of building number one. Again, staff feels lacks a vertical breaks and provides a minimal base, middle, and top. Next slide, please. And then again, this is a zoomed in image of the applicant site plan showing the floor plan of building number three. And you can see the outdoor dining patio just north of the building. Shown on screen now are project renderings provided by the applicant. This is a rendering from Seward Avenue. And you can see building number one and then building number two as well. This is a second rendering provided by the applicant. This is from US Highway 101, the northbound off ramp. You can see building number two and then building number three, the closest building in the rendering. And this is the third rendering provided by the applicant. This is the project site from Alessandro Drive, or entering the project site from Alessandro Drive. You can see here a portion of building number one, but predominantly building number two in the center, building number three, and then the residence in the background. Open Space and Landscaping, the project provides a hierarchy of plantings as recommended by the 1997 design guidelines, but staff does feel improvements could be made. Trees, shrubs, grasses, and ground covers make up the preliminary plant list. Ornamental grasses and trees line the perimeter of the site, particularly the south property lines adjacent to US Highway 101. Trees are sprinkled throughout the site, but due to the proposed development being over-parked and providing more parking than necessary by code, staff does recommend that the landscaping fingers be provided within the parking areas to evenly distribute or provide more landscaping throughout the project site. Speaking a little bit to the newly adopted 2050 general plan, specifically the environmental justice section. Again, although the 2050 general plan has not been certified by the Coastal Commission, it does provide a framework for the city's long-term vision. The environmental justice chapter speaks on addressing the environmental justice needs of communities such as healthy food, access, pollution exposure, and safe and sanitary housing is essential for improving health outcomes. Environmental Justice Goal 3 notes to reduce pollutant emissions and pollutant exposure from freeways and mobile sources of pollution. And Environmental Justice Goal 3.2 is to minimize air pollution impacts within 500 feet of freeways on nearby residential and commercial uses by adding a green or gray infrastructure buffer. So as previously noted, the project has not yet received an application completeness determination, and therefore full technical studies such as traffic, stormwater, or CEQA studies have not been completed. This project again is a temperature check, is intended to provide directional feedback before the applicant tonight before they commit resources to a full project analysis. Staff will require all applicable technical studies such as traffic, stormwater, CEQA, VMT analysis to be completed as part of the application process before the project returns for a formal decision making hearing. some policy consideration for your discussion tonight. The drive through or the dining establishment fast service drive up is a permitted use in the commercial tourist oriented zone by way of a use permit approval, which means that the chosen land use as a secondary land use of the zone. The site's planned commercial tourist-oriented designation under the 1989 comprehensive plan identifies this as a limited strategically located resource requiring well-designed, well-buffered tourist-oriented development. Additionally, the project site is within a designated scenic approach as noted in the 1989 comprehensive plan and development must complement the visual character of the Pierpont Keys area. Some additional considerations for the Planning Commission, the city's preference from an economic development standpoint is for a concept that leans into the site's role as an entry point into Ventura. Development should encourage people to stop, spend time, and engage with the area rather than passing through. Additionally, a mix of uses that is experience-driven and complements the neighboring hotel and surrounding residential community is preferred. A project that aligns with the Ventura Vibrant Vision should prioritize placemaking, thoughtful design, and unique findings. The City Council did adopt in 2025, or sorry, rather 2024, the Ventura Vibrant Vision. It is a five-year economic development strategy to enhance and guide the growth of the community and the quality of life and support local businesses. It focuses on creating walkable districts, enhancing coastal access, and fostering a creative, sustainable, inclusive beach town atmosphere. Staff has the following questions for the planning commission for your deliberation tonight. Does the proposed project design reflect the scenic approach character in Beachtown identity called for by the 1989 comprehensive plans plan commercial tourist oriented designation in the 2050 general plans goals for the Pierpont area? Does the site's layout and building placement create an appropriate pedestrian experience and public realm activation for a visitor-serving coastal location? Does the proposed architecture achieve the eclectic beach character encouraged by the 1997 design guidelines? Are the proposed drive-through uses as currently designed compatible with the site's planned commercial tourist oriented designation surrounding uses in the city's vision for this coastal commercial corridor? Should the applicant reconsider the project's development program or building orientation to better achieve the visitor serving function and coastal oriented goals of the governing plans? And lastly, what landscape improvements, if any, would the Planning Commission prioritize to address buffering, pedestrian connectivity, and air quality mitigation? Again, the recommendation tonight is that there is no recommendation. Staff requested that planning commission review this project and provide direction and feedback to the applicant on the key issues identified in this presentation and the report. Thank you. And I'm going to lose my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. White. Appreciate the presentation tonight. Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff? Let's use our, if we can, our request to speak so I can keep track. And I think Commissioner Abbey is not up yet, right? I say rely on.

Thank you, Chair.

We'll go to you first, Commissioner Abbey.

OK. One to ask staff, and I saw the slides and I saw the report. So we know that the drive-throughs, the two drive-throughs, have to have a conditional use permit. I wasn't sure when it said fast serve drive up, that's drive up is drive through, right? And my further question is, does the third building that's not a drive through is fast serve, I'm assuming it's a sit down, or I don't know if you just drive up and then order and leave. Does that require a conditional use permit?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Abbey. As you noted, THE DINING ESTABLISHED BATH SERVICE DRIVE-UP BY DEFINITION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, IT CAN BE INTERPRETED TO BE A DRIVE-THROUGH ESSENTIALLY. BUT IT IS THE FORMAL DEFINITION PROVIDED BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE OR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF A DRIVE-THROUGH. AND TO YOUR SECOND POINT, THE QUICK SERVE BUILDING RETAIL OR DINING OPTION. YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE MORE OF A ALL OF THE APPLICANT FURTHER PROVIDE THEIR VISION FOR THAT BUILDING. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD KIND OF QUICK TO GO FOOD AND YOU CAN SIT DOWN AND EAT YOUR MEAL THERE OR TAKE IT TO GO. BUT THAT USE FOR THAT DINING ASSESSMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL TOURIST ORIENTED ZONE.

THANK YOU.

Any other requests to speak? Questions? Yes, Commissioner, Vice Chair Zucker.

Thank you, Chair. A few questions for staff. So I see the connectivity with the hotel nearby. I'm wondering about, I know there's a residential development coming in kind of up the hill. What's kind of the potential connectivity there? Is it, I mean, I know it's probably pretty steep, but you know...

Thank you, Commissioner Zucker. Right now, that proposed project is paused. We don't have it currently active. But currently, you would take Alessandro Road up to Vista Del Mar to access that residential neighborhood. So they would have shared access along Alessandro Drive from Seward.

Great. And then in terms of potential pedestrian access, I guess how easy or safe would it be to walk from the nearby?

Currently, the plan that's under review does show pedestrian access going up Alessandro. If I recall properly, the sidewalk would be on the north-facing side of Alessandro and not the south-facing side, and there would be bike lanes put in as well. Those things would need to be realized with that larger project and are designed with this project.

Great. And then you mentioned the drive-through and quick service restaurants as kind of secondary land uses for this CTO zone. What are the primary land uses, or what would be kind of the preferred...

Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair Schellacker. Great question. I'm gonna pull up the municipal code so I can speak to the by-right uses and the uses that would require a use permit.

Great. Maybe while you work on that, I could share some of the questions. And this might be, this next question might take some work, too. But I know we had DRC recommendation around kind of a rooftop restaurant. And folks submitted comments. And the applicant saying it's not really viable because of the kind of depression of the site. How high would a building need to be to have any kind of coastal view from that site? AND IS THAT ALLOWABLE UNDER OUR ZONING CODE?

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR ZUCKER. SO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY CODE ON THE UNDERLYING ZONING OF COMMERCIAL TOURISTS IS 30 FEET. HOWEVER, THE WAY WE DO MEASURE HEIGHT WITHIN THE CITY BY MUNICIPAL CODE IS YOU WOULD TAKE THE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE OF YOUR FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MEASURE UP 30 FEET. SO ALTHOUGH THERE IS A DEPRESSION AND SHOWN IN THE PRESENTATION, THERE IS A DRASTIC ABOUT A 25-FOOT GRADE TOPOGRAPHY DIFFERENCE, IT COULD BE WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY DEPENDING ON WHAT THE APPLICANT IS CREATIVE ENOUGH TO PRODUCE THAT YOU COULD REASONABLY ACHIEVE POTENTIALLY SOME COASTAL VIEWS FROM THE SITE.

Thank you. And then just my last question is there's a lot mentioned throughout the kind of staff report presentation, which was really fantastic, by the way, you know, very, very detailed, of kind of coastal-oriented uses as well as kind of beach architecture. What are some examples of kind of like coastal-oriented, you know, uses at a site like this and maybe, you know, what might be some examples of when we talk about beach architecture?

So maybe a good way to think about it, Vice Chair, is that things that are in our harbor tend to be associated with the coastline. So maybe having surfboard rentals, bike rentals would be associated with the coastal area, restaurants associated to the area, vendors that might be selling fish or something similar. as compared to, say, maybe a general doctor's office, which might not be necessarily needed to be near the coastline, might be discouraged in zones where we have commercial-oriented uses so that those uses are more inland and not right on the coast where we might want to have hotels and other sort of tourist-related uses.

That's great. Super helpful. And then what about kind of beach architecture? That's mentioned. What might that look like? Sure.

Well, I think that's one of the things that's a little bit difficult with our current objective standards that we're working on is what does that mean? We want to keep that eclectic nature here in Ventura, and we hear that through our objective design standards. So there is a bit of interpretation. I think Raising Cane's was a recent project where it was pretty inland, but our design review committee said, we'd like you to incorporate something coastal. And they looked at adding a mural to the side of the building that looks like the coastline and has some of our coastal features there. So not to say that these buildings aren't necessarily coastal, but incorporating something that's a bit more unique to the Pierpont area ties into the architecture of some of the more beach bungalow styles of architecture might be one way or one method that the applicant could address that and make it more beachy.

Super helpful. Thanks so much.

And then going back to your first question on buy right uses or uses permitted in the zone versus secondary or conditional use permit uses. So some examples of uses permitted buy right would be a business professional support use, cultural library services, dining establishment takeout, which is the applicant has provided, a drinking establishment, dining service, a full service, like a full service restaurant, sit down restaurant. SOME PERSONAL SERVICES, GOVERNMENT SERVICES WOULD BE ALLOWED, AND THEN A NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL SERVICES, WHETHER IT'S AN AMUSEMENT CENTER, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION, AND THEN EVEN AS WELL AS SHOPPING CENTERS. AND SOME EXAMPLES OF USES THAT WOULD REQUIRE A USE PERMIT WOULD BE AS THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED IN THE REQUEST TONIGHT, A DINING ESTABLISHMENT FAST SERVICE DRIVE-UP, EDUCATION CENTER, A FARMER'S MARKET, AND A

rec service such as a campground or outdoor sports and recreation use yeah thank you so much that's perfect appreciate it any other questions yes commissioner whittaker i i don't the queue's not up on my thing i apologize

Thank you, Grant. Really good presentation. Really appreciate it. I just had questions, staff. I've been asked this as a planning commissioner, and I don't have an answer, so I thought this would be the good time to ask. Was there any talk about ever putting a rooftop bar or eating establishment above Residence Inn, or was the height an issue? I mean, was that ever discussed?

Commissioner Winnegar I do recall although this predates me by several years that there were discussions about having some sort of element on the top of that building and ultimately they chose to have the amenities on the ground floor rather than on the rooftop. But it's definitely something that could have been on that building if they had designed around it but they did not proceed with that.

Okay, thank you. And then can you tell me, Grant, can you, or actually, and this is probably predates most of you also, is there a reason that your environmental resources people want the trash enclosure attached to the building? Because you said that was one of the issues.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Winninger. is a development standard within municipal code section 24-475 for the Dining Self-Enriched Fast Service drive-up regulations. Those were adopted in, I believe, 1971. The ask, I guess, would be to integrate into the site to provide more, better circulation. In some cases, it doesn't always pencil out, but it could be, it's a relatively old regulation, but that would be my understanding. Better integration to the site provides more potential walkability connectivity to the pedestrian realm or better site circulation. But as you see it through many establishments of similar nature, some do and some haven't. So it's kind of peppered throughout the city.

Okay. That's what I was thinking. So I was just wondering about how new that was. Let's see if I have any more questions. Oh, yeah, final question. Are there on the PCT goals and policies for the design character, is there any goals and policies specific to this property, the Alessandro property?

Thank You Commissioner so yeah this the plain commercial tourist oriented is again provided directly from the 1990 1989 comprehensive plan and the This it does note this property specifically as plain commercial with the sub zone being tourist oriented and The comprehensive plan does identify these four as characteristics of this property as a policy for development or redevelopment of the site. And again, it's a strategic location, fronts a major thoroughfare, located in or near an existing activity center, and the site needs to be well buffered.

OK, but it's not for this particular site. It's just properties that are PCT, correct?

Correct, but this site particularly was identified in the comp plan as a PCT site, yeah.

Thank you. That's all my questions.

Any other questions from the Commission?

Yes, Commissioner McCarty. So Vice Chair Zucker posed the question earlier about how the site would potentially connect to the development planned for just north of that site. I'd like to expand the question a little bit. And if staff, if you could articulate your understanding of the proposed or envisioned long range plans for the south seaward corridor, how that might be improved and whether or not, what the plan is for bicycle lanes along seaward just west of this area.

So although this project doesn't have its completed traffic analysis completed, we will take a look at that. Separate analysis was conducted for the project north of this up on Del Mar. And in that plan, if that project proceeds, there was identified plans to make improvements to move folks from upper on lower Seward down to Seaward in a safe pathway, which would be ramps and different stairwells. And then along with that, there would be improvements along Seaward under the railroad crossing and freeway crossing to have a raised platform for pedestrians and bicycle paths. That would not necessarily be part of this project, but if these projects move forward separately, amenities related to this project would be foreseen through that traffic analysis, likely along Alessandro or Seaward where this project ties in. But that would be with that larger C word study that was done as part of that other project that would foresee those changes there.

And just to add to that, the active transportation plan includes some future plans for additional protected bike lanes on Seaward from East Main Street to Pierpont. And then also as part of that project on Vista Del Mar, a bike lane connection between Vista Del Mar and Alessandro's was noted.

That's exactly what I wanted to hear. So in my mind then, this project has some conceivable excellent future synergy with other plans we have for active transportation within that area.

And then there's also additionally in the medium term the active transportation plan calls for protected bike lanes with vertical separation along south seaward from the 101 to Pierpont.

from the 101 to the beach in general a comfortable neighborhood bikeway and those are listed in the project list in that active transportation plan okay thank you perfect any further questions from the commission okay seeing as there are none then we will move on to public comment Mr clerk do we have any speakers on tonight's item

Thank you, Chair. We have about 10 public speakers on this item. Our first speaker is Bob Guthrie, followed by Mary Ann Beaviter. And Bob, you've been seated timed by Wendy Sautter, so you'll have six minutes.

Sorry to interrupt, Chair. Did we want to hear from the applicant for their presentation prior to public comment? I apologize. Thank you. Thank you, Director Diamond.

Apologies, Bob.

Sorry, Bob. We'll call you up in a minute.

Bob, I apologize. We're going to let the applicant give their time for their presentation. Thank you so much. Apologies. Apologies to the applicant. Missed my order of operations on my script here.

I have the use of two?

Yeah.

I don't need two, but I'll push one away. Hi, good evening, Chair Boussa and commissioners. My name is Tom Cohen. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Ashton Development. It's an honor and pleasure to present our project to you this evening. I've heard a lot of great questions and input so far. Appreciate that. With me tonight is Mr. Ahmad Ghaderi and David Scott. They're the ownership. and also Larry Tangi with CB Richard Ellis who has been working on figuring out what uses are actually gonna work here from a real estate and marketing perspective. So I wanna thank staff and you for providing us this platform to have a dialogue in which we can get your valued feedback about the project. Just a little bit of background to help us get started. You know, Golden China closed over nine years ago. Mr. Guidari then purchased the property in 2019. He came in with an open mind as to the ultimate economically viable and best use or uses of the property, both from an economically viable perspective but also for the city. He spent time looking at the city's general plan policies and goals. property zoning, studied its permitted use matrix, and talked with the city on many occasions. And then he embarked on a market-driven analysis to consider what the community requested and what was realistically possible, considering the market and considering the site conditions that you've heard a lot about tonight already. Mr. Tangi with C.B. Richard Ellis is available to talk to you. He talked to the real estate industry, restaurants, including the White Tablecloth sit-down owners in the downtown, a multitude of retailers and other operators about the property to determine interest. Again, he's here to tell you a little more in depth about those efforts. Key input about the property from the market research focused on challenges the property presented. Topographic challenges due to the gray differential limits visibility. Development adjacent to the noisy 101 freeway limits the types of tenants that would want to locate here. We've got challenging access, you've heard about that, and limited, if any, opportunity for pedestrian activity, thus limiting a customer base that a commercial property owner would hope could walk to the center. I heard about the long-range plan for the transportation corridor, but that's a long-term plan. So to be blunt about the market analysis and research that's been done, it is not an attractive site for higher-end retailers and restaurants. In addition, while the property is in the coastal zone and within less than a mile from the ocean, it does not provide coastal opportunities to take advantage of due to the wide expanse of the freeway overpass, which makes it feel like an island disconnected from the coastal area. And as it sits right now, it's unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists to walk or to ride from the Pierpont neighborhood and the beach. Now the new hotel certainly helps the city with bed tax benefits and fulfills a need for tourists and visitor activity to stay nearby, and due to its height, provides ocean views at the top of the building. But that building exceeds 45 and maybe as high as 60 feet. But we see synergy between our project and the hotel. Thus with this information, it became clear that our options were best suited to, you're not gonna like to hear this, auto-centric retail uses, and quick serve high quality restaurants and a coffee purveyor, which are compatible uses for the hotel. Our site is not conducive to building a 45-foot tall retail complex to take advantage of the ocean views at that height. By the way, 45 feet is not even allowed in the zone, but that's the height it would need to be to have an ocean view due to the topography of the site. And while we contemplated housing, it was not an option and that became clear when the general plan update hearings were taking place. We came to those meetings and housing was turned down for this location while we still think it could be a good use. So two basic reasons for the proposed uses. The property is undeniably freeway adjacent. It is also undeniable that the hotel guests will frequent these uses and we believe the community will too. The proposed uses are commonly found adjacent to hotels for this very reason. The proposed uses, as you heard earlier from Grant, are specifically identified as allowed uses in the general plan and zoning ordinance, subject to a use permit for the drive-throughs. The goal that we set for the project and for which we're working towards is not to request any waivers or variances from the city codes. There were two examples where they would be needed, but we're here to tell you that we're here to solve those issues to come back with a fully compliant two-code project, and that includes resolving the trash enclosure question. Let's see, key points I want to highlight about the project and the city's development standards and policies. We don't view there being any neighborhood compatibility issues with the proposed uses. There's no health, safety, or welfare impacts that warrant denial of the project. And I know we're not making a decision about the project, but I think that's an important point. There are no noise, order, vibration, or other nuisance impacts from these proposed uses that would affect the surrounding community. there is an abundance of landscaping and trees proposed but we're certainly happy to enhance what we're proposing if that's something that every everybody values and as and we do the total building footprint for the three buildings is less than seven percent of the total land area indicating a low density project And the buildings are low rise with an architectural design. They're 20 foot tall. That architectural design is modern and compatible with the hotel's design and feel, we believe. But we're happy to look at further enhancements to the design, should you have thoughts about that. And we do want to highlight the project benefits. We're cleaning up a blighted property. We're proposing uses that the hotel customer will no doubt use due to its proximity to the project. The owner is investing millions of dollars, including offsite improvements for the streets. The businesses that will locate here will generate sales and property taxes for the city. Jobs are going to be provided. There's green construction practices that will be implemented, including solar, EV, bicycle racks. We've heard that this project site described as the Seaward Gateway. uh while it is a freeway entry point into the city it does not have the features typically found for creating a gateway entry that serves as the front door designed to create a strong first impression and enhance community identity primarily because the site is in a depression with significant grade differential It lacks the pedestrian accessibility and connectivity due to the wide and inconvenient and potentially dangerous overpass where there's a lot of vehicular traffic moving through north and south. And there's significant freeway noise. And that's not to say we're diminishing our design as a result of that. We believe our design has been well thought out. And so I do want to make one correction to what I heard in the presentation from Grant tonight. Building 3 is intended to be a space for retail and a full service restaurant. It's not contemplated to be a fast serve restaurant. I just wanted to make sure I got that point across. This concludes my presentation. We're excited to hear what you have to say and have a two-way dialogue. Mr. Guidari's here, Mr. Scott is here, and Larry Tangi's here. I think you'd get some valuable information from all of us. Thank you very much. Questions now, or do we want to hold that back until after you get all the testimony?

Sorry, I wanted to see if there was any questions from the Commission for the applicant at this time. Okay.

Do you have any other developments that this team has put together in the area or anything we can look at as examples of what you've done in the past?

We have a project that is in the entitlement process in the adjacent to the wells in the 126 freeway. That's got a mixed use housing and retail component, commercial component. But that's in the entitlement phase. We don't have anything that's built here. Okay, thank you.

Yeah. Vice Chair Zucker?

Yeah, thank you. Ed, two questions. One, you mentioned, you know, the market research, which I think is really important for what we're considering here. How many potential customers did you contact or, yeah, what did the scale of that research look like?

I'd be happy to answer that, but the best person to ask that question to is Mr. Tangy. Can we call him up?

Let's go with the chair.

Hi, commissioners. I handle multiple restaurant properties throughout the city. Pacific View Mall, the old Mimi's Cafe, the former Panera Bread, also in that same center there's Stone Fire Grill that's also for sublease. And in addition to that, we work on the port side plaza where there's two restaurant spots there. So we're calling restaurants day in and day out everywhere and constantly turning it over every three months. So every restaurant that you can think of has been called. And then to go back to another thing they said is We got a list of a number of restaurants that are in Ventura now where people knew that there was, hey, something's there going on there. They're maybe not that happy. Can you go check them out? We hit them all up. And this was more specifically to the upstairs kind of seaside view scenario. None of them ended up coming down to this location.

Do you have maybe like a ballpark number of, and I know you mentioned restaurants, but there are other potential end uses?

Literally hundreds.

And then the other question, I mean, I don't know if this is best for you or who on your team, but just of all the DRC recommendations, which ones are you maybe more amenable to? Which ones might be kind of deal breakers?

Good afternoon, Ahmad Ghadiri with Ashton Development. We actually had a very good conversation with the DRC committee, and we're definitely working on the project to take it back with their recommendations. The architecture, another problem, landscaping is fine. You know, setbacks as far as the 20-feet landscape setback and what have you. Our intention is to comply with all the requirements. They had very good points, and again, our point is to make sure that's something that you guys are happy with. So I don't see anything that's impossible.

Absolutely. So some of the DRC recommendations, they're not necessarily like code requirements, but they're suggestions of those. Are there some of those that you're maybe more amenable to versus some that might might not be feasible at the project for you.

I was at the meeting as well, and I don't see any issues, except the one thing, the question you ask is, what is the coastal architecture? And we still don't have that established, but I'm sure we can come up with something that's, you know, again, what our intent was, right now you have the brand new hotel that's more, you know, modern looking and stuck on all that. So we're assuming that that's what, compatibility with that architecture was what the intent was. But hearing the DRC committee members, they asked for a coastal architecture, which we're open to. But we don't know what that parameter is, but I'm sure we'll be able to achieve that and provide it.

Thank you.

Could we ask you to pull up the DRC recommendations real quick?

Because I think there were a couple.

that the 45-foot high, tall, you know, restaurant, rooftop restaurant or bar, and then the... Well, the rooftop, like, number one, we are gonna do the traffic study.

Combining the buildings, we still don't have an answer on that as to how they want that to achieve. They talked about it, so we have to still look at the site layout. Rooftop restaurant, that's impossible because of the great differential. The intent of the rooftop restaurant was to have a, you know, coastal view of. But we, as Tom indicated, we appeared before the city council three times to ask for a mixed-use option, where we could have a mixed-use residential and on top of it have a rooftop restaurant. And as Larry indicated, he had contacted 100, but I think If it was built, there will be somebody that will come up because of the view and all that, but we were told that that's not feasible. Architecture, as we discussed, we'll work on that. Building height, again, the tower element, that's fine because that's more of a visibility of the building and signage, that's not a problem. I'm not sure about the community friendly for local tourist use. Again, that's a general vague requirement. we have to work on that green buffer another problem site sections they just want to see how this section of the building in respect to the freeway and all that was that's not a we'll work on that an outside patio we already have it proposed but we can expand on that as well uh so for the majority we should be able to meet their requirements thank you so much for going through that one by one that was super helpful thank you commissioner

Yes. Um, I'm sorry, I forgot your consultant's name, but the restaurant guru. Yeah, please. Sure. Obviously, this is a working session, you know, and so I feel like I'd like to ask you this question since you represent Panera and Stonefire or the like. You know, obviously, when I looked at this before and I'm not deliberating right now, you know, I thought, well, what other uses could this be, you know, without the drive-through? And obviously, Panera hasn't worked for us or Stonefire. Why don't those restaurants work in Ventura?

Well, it's kind of a really tough problem right now for restaurants. You just got to read the news right now, and many of them are shutting continually. I mean, Calaveras had just opened up in Oxnard. it's shutting down now i just heard today from the brokers from chick-fil-a that they were hit up for that space the whole chain's going bankrupt so there's a lot of problems i mean obviously you can just look at where traditional restaurants have been and they haven't been backfilled you can just start moving up victoria avenue and take a look at you know the marie calendars I mean, obviously there's been something there for homes over the years, but I mean, nothing's been vacant for a long time. And then just step back to how come the Chart House never worked out for another restaurant? Or for that matter, Love's Barbecue or the Hungry Hunter, all right down there also. So the one bright spot is, and I forgot to mention it, is I also leased the Black Bear Diner after Carol's closed down. So it's a tough environment out there for restaurants. And there's a lot of reasons for it. You read about it all the time, just minimum wage and everything else. But it's truly not a good restaurant spot. I mean, think about it. You've had Charlie Brown's there. You've got Acapulco's there. You had Golden China there. lost it's a destination you know it's not anything that if you were going to be a restaurant and successful it'd probably be somewhere on harbor boulevard right with the freeway visibility flat visible to the highway in both directions right next to the beach next to the state beach you know that's kind of more of the setting or it's going to be something where you have a lot of shopping you know over by the mall over off the main street of call it any of the streets that have 42 000 cars a day moving at 35 40 miles an hour you know you get a good look at it going down call it east main street past the mall out towards you know the other chick-fil-a that's uh down off a telephone road or up victoria i mean you've got good daytime demographics there too that support a good lunch you really don't have that I mean, it's really more of people going by the freeway, you know? And even that's kind of a little difficult here. In the past, you'd note that there used to be some pretty good signage there. We'll see what we get, you know? So, it's not your typical, hey, this is your great dining restaurant place. Obviously, the hotel works. It helps. And I think we can play off each other. But it's, you know, there's plenty of other places in town that work well for fine sit-down dining. Or even family dining. I mean, like Black Bear Diner. All right.

Any other questions from the Commission I just had one you mentioned the hotel a few times what? What guidance or input did the hotel provide? To you as a team for the project at all. Did you didn't reach didn't connect with them? Okay Thank you But they provided no input as to what they would okay, thank you Okay, with that, then I will go to public comment. I believe we had.

Thank you, Chair. Like I said before, we do have about ten public speakers. Our first speaker is Bob Guthrie, followed by Mary Ann Beavener, and Bob's been seated timed by Wendy Sautter, so you'll have six minutes.

Take two. Good evening. Happy to hear that the developer is agreeable to making some changes. Tonight I'm going to reiterate some of the key points in the staff report, a report I found to be very comprehensive and well written. The applicant has a legal right to pursue a dining establishment at this site, but any project needs to meet the site land use and project type requirements, as well as all the environmental conditions and traffic safety. Although I think the proposed design will have unmitigatable traffic issues, I can understand why the developer wants to wait on a traffic study until they get a reading on whether you're agreeable to this type of project. So tonight's question is really whether the two proposed drive-throughs in a short order restaurant, which maybe isn't a short order restaurant based on what I heard, are right for the site. The location is very important to our city. The staff report notes that the site's land use designation identifies it as a limited, strategically located resource intended for specialized tourist commercial development that is well designed, well buffered, and compatible with the scenic approach character of the Pierpont and Keys area. The 2050 General Plan's goals further reinforce a vision for high quality, coastal oriented, visitor serving development of this location. Further, the report mentions that from an economic development perspective, the city prefers to see a concept that more clearly leans into the site's role as an entry point into Ventura by emphasizing the city's coastal culture and sense of place. Staff suggests this could incorporate more experience-driven uses that encourage people to stop, spend time, and engage with the area rather than passing through. Any project should ideally also complement the neighboring hotel and the surrounding residential area. Overall, a concept that prioritizes thoughtful design and more unique offerings would better align with Ventura's long-term economic and community vision. The design review committee was not supportive of the project, at least not very supportive of the project. In the staff report, it's noted they found the current architectural design to reflect standardized corporate styles inconsistent with the 1997 design guidelines, which call for eclectic beach type architecture that retains and enhances the funky beach atmosphere of the immediate community. They directed the applicant to substantially redesign the building's architectural characteristics to authentically reflect Ventura's beach and surf culture. They also said the project should be more community friendly for both local and tourist use. They were concerned the project is oriented primarily toward drive-through customers and does not adequately serve pedestrians, cyclists, or the broader local community. They directed the applicant to explore design features that would make the site more welcoming and functional for both residents and visitors arriving on foot, by bicycle, or by transit. Doing so would make it consistent with the visitor and community serving intent of the CTO zone and the PCT designation. Finally, both the DRC and staff indicated the project should have better buffering from the freeway and the seaward off ramp. The applicant's request for a 50% reduction in the required 20 foot setback adjacent to the off ramp is completely contrary to this, but it sounds like they're agreeable to change that one. I ask that you send this project back to the drawing board as not only does the architectural style fail to meet the intent of the area, but three high turnover food outlets fall short of the envisioned use for this important property. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Ann Beavener, followed by Mark Sirota.

Do you have the handout? Ooh, I'm shorter. Hi, I'm Mary Ann Beavener from Midtown Seward Corridor, and I'm wearing bright green tonight because it's Earth Day and because it's a color that I wear often so I don't get hit by cars on the Seward Corridor. So we do not need another fast food restaurant in Midtown. We already have seven within a half a mile of this location. And the eighth, which is a coffee shop, is already going to a second time for DRC in early May. And we already know about these issues because Community Director Diamond also got published two of the KB Home studies. The circulation study that evaluated the vehicular and the pedestrian traffic. It's specifically in that document states that this project was not considered as part of it because it had no planned development. And more importantly, the beach access, which is the rail crossing study, cannot be over the rails. It's got to be under. It is long term. It is not short term. And the priority there is that there are a lot of, at that particular quarter, a lot of multimodal collisions. This is from the report. That means pedestrians and bicyclists. So the next thing, health risk is the air pollution for the residents. Island cars emit around 20 times more air pollution than one traveling at 30 miles an hour. And there are only 1.3 million electric vehicles registered in California versus 32 million gas. So, oh and I should say that the hotel next door has 125 rooms and they allow two pets per room, each at 60 pounds. And they need a place where they want to walk their dogs. So there is a pedestrian there. So I appreciate your time and hope you have the last minute I have here to look at these 11 fast food drive-throughs on a map. And I also want to compliment everybody because associated with this are all the affordable units that are already approved or considered being approved for the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mark Sirota, followed by Roger Osborne. And Mark, you'll have even seated time by Carol Spector, so you'll have six minutes.

And you have a slide for me, right? Yeah. Good evening, commissioners. My comments tonight on this project fall into two categories. The first has to do with what the staff report fails to mention, and the second has to do with, in my opinion, the critical question that the staff report is asking of this body. So the first one had to do with traffic, and I'm a little, at the DRC meeting, I thought we were told that the city decided a traffic report, a traffic study was not necessary. Somewhere in the middle of the name, there was another comment, I checked this staff report, and the only traffic aspect that was mentioned was circulation within the area of the project itself. So I'm gonna talk about, about the traffic study, and if one's gonna be done, that's great. So to the first, the staff report doesn't mention traffic, and yet it seems obvious that this project, in conjunction with present and planned future development, surely must influence traffic congestion, pedestrian and cyclist safety, evacuation times in an emergency, and may discourage visitors to Ventura due to slow transit on congested roads. The only question is how much. Recent and planned developments in this area are many. They include the recently completed KB Homes with 72 units, the Residence Inn with 125 units, the planned Vista Del Mar project with 215 units, the approved Anastasia development with 96 residential units and approximately 19,000 square feet of retail space, and then add two drive-throughs and a quick service dining restaurant. Making matters worse, access to the existing credit union, the long existing Vista Del Mar residential community, the Vista Del Mar project, and this project all utilize Alessandro Drive, which then feeds into Seward. In addition, Ventura's 2050 general plan shows that Seward and the Seward-Harvard intersection tsunami evacuation route is already over capacity based on current development. You can look at that on the slide over there. It's Seward's in red, Harvard, and it's already with the present amount of construction development over capacity in case of an evacuation. Prudence demands that a comprehensive traffic study that addresses traffic, safety, and evacuation on Alessandro, Seaward, Harbor, the 101 Interchanges, and Vista Del Mar, and includes all present and planned development, must be completed before any new development in this area is approved. On to my second point. The critical question that I feel the staff report is asking is whether the essence of this project as conceived is appropriate for this location. In my opinion, the answer is clearly no. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan declares Highway 101 north and southbound off-ramps at Seaward Avenue as a scenic approach. The 2050 general plan regarding the CTO designation includes the following statement. The intent is to create areas where tourists and visitors can find essential services and recreational opportunities. The CTO zoning district is intended to accomplish the following development goals. Provide an area in which visitor serving commercial and recreational facilities shall be emphasized and located. Two, provide with both general and specific development standards a high level of site and operational performance with due consideration to visitor needs. And lastly, number three, provide visitor-serving commercial land and improvements in the coastal area. The key word in each of these statements is visitor. This project is designed as a nondescript stop on a highway with no different than a thousand other stops throughout the country. The majority of those who will stop here aren't visitors or tourists, they're just passing through. And there's nothing here that's gonna keep them. The staff reports closing statement, quote, from an economic development perspective and for alignment with the Ventura vibrant vision, the city prefers to see a concept that more clearly leans into the site's role as an entry point into Ventura by emphasizing a cohesive resident and visitor serving environment that reflects the city's culture and sense of place. This statement is 100% right on. No doubt the location has some challenges to meet this vision. On the other hand, there is a hotel next door filled with people eager to explore and experience what Ventura has to offer if only we make it available. An outdoor fast food court is not what they are looking for. With a vision, creativity, and positive attitude, I have no doubt that we can do better than this project, much better. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Roger Osborne, followed by Tina Todd.

Hello there, everybody. I'm Roger Osborne, concerned citizen. Let's see, I just got three minutes. Okay, I thought I had six. Anyway, I'm glad that you're open to some changes and ideas. We don't normally see that in developers. So thank you. I can work with you. Don't like the idea of fast food. It's unhealthy. It's nothing but a sugar and cholesterol delivery system that contributes to obesity, many other health problems, which is well and extensively documented. And I should know. These places only employ people part-time at the lowest possible wages with few or no benefits. These so-called restaurants are all invasive and ugly, And I don't see any reason for them to be in that little spot that I've referred to as the hollow for a few years. That space is brilliant. That space where the golden china used to be can be made into so many beautiful things. It could be a Japanese garden. It could be a bird sanctuary. It could be a children's huge playground welcoming people coming up from the south to our city. People would drive by and say, oh, look, there's a cool kids' playground with a skateboard. What do they call those things? the skateboard depressions that the kids ride their skateboards through. All kinds of things that could be welcoming instead of, as our last speaker said, just another dull, bland, you know, food court, fast food kind of mentality. No, no, no. We don't need more of that. We need a lot less. But what you could do with that area in terms of welcoming tourists, visitors. And without a restaurant there, they're going to have to go downtown, the poor devils. They're going to have to get off on California Street and have good food, because that's the only other place you can get off before you're out of town. So I like the idea of using it for something beautiful. and something that really sets off our community and heralds it.

Roger, I'm going to ask you to address the commission, please. Oh, I'm so sorry.

OK, I'm not used to this. So that's basically what I'm thinking here. I had written a nice long paper here, and I had written it to address the city council. So there's a lot of it here I am not saying. uh but i think you get my drift and i'll save all the good juicy stuff for the uh council chambers when uh we get to that point but i'm glad you're building it's a good idea but just please no fast foods okay that's it thank you for your time our next speaker is tina todd followed by jeff clem

Hi, I'm Tina Todd. I'm a resident of Midtown. I really don't have anything else to add. I think it's just a repeat of what the other speakers have said. Basically, I don't see the need for more fast food. We have a lot already in Ventura. I would like to see more imaginative uses of the site. There's also a traffic issue. Seaward's already pretty busy and With the hotel and planned housing, I think it's just going to get worse and be more gridlocked. So people won't want to come off anyway because it's gridlocked. But that's really all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jeff Clam, followed by Glenn Overley.

Hello, I'm Jeff Clemmy. I don't think it's been mentioned tonight. If it has, forgive me. I just wanted to point out there's one driveway going into this development and leaving this development. One driveway for three restaurants and the hotel. I don't think that's been mentioned tonight. I just wanted to point that out. I think this is... Well, let me just say, I don't wanna say this is poor development, but this community harbor in Seward needs to have a general plan. It doesn't make sense to put a hotel here, put a housing development here, put a, excuse me, put a bike lane here, put a hotel over here, put a fast food restaurant here, and have it all work out piecemeal. There needs to be a plan. And I just want to, I got two minutes left, I just want to conclude with a story, which is a scenario. There's a young couple with a couple of kids. They live in Los Angeles and they decide on Saturday they're going to take a ride up the 101 North and spend some time and money. And they hit Ventura. Johnson Drive, no knock on Johnson Drive, but it looks like every other exit. And they keep going past Main Street, whatever we got, before they get to Seaward. And there's a reason why they call it Seaward. Off to their left, they see it. They finally see the ocean through a grove of trees. And to their right, they see some ag land that we've preserved. And then they come to the Seward exit, and they see a hotel and fast food restaurants. And the couple turn to each other and say, let's just keep going to Ojai or Santa Barbara.

Our next speaker is Glenn Overley, followed by Juan Larris. And Glenn, you've been seated timed by Patty Overley, so you'll have six minutes.

Good evening, Commission. I think those renderings are quite beautiful. I really do. And if it was Irvine or Mission Viejo, it'd fit in. It doesn't fit in here. Patty and I moved here in 2016. We bought a house that was circa 1950s. We remodeled it completely and held to the origins of that home because we live in Midtown. So I live north of this project, and I really would like to see something go in there. But what I want also is you have the residence in, and I drove over to that site today before I came here, and Patty and I walk that area on a regular basis. We take our lives in our hands when we cross the railroad tracks. I put a penny on there hoping when I come back it's gonna be nice and flat, which we did when we were kids. But when we get across and we get onto Seward, we have to go from the east side of Seaward over to the west side via that crosswalk at Alessandro. And as you all know, we have the lemon plants gonna be homes, we have the fire departments building their new station, We have Anastasi that's coming down. This needs to be a comprehensive traffic plan because if I live in District One or one of the other districts, you have your own traffic problems. Midtown has its traffic problems and this is gonna keep those problems getting worse than they are already. Now, when I looked at that site today and I actually drove in, what I noticed is you have this beautiful residency inn. And residency end, you look at them, most of the time they look like they do. They're residency ends. But to get in there, that roadway is just not wide enough right now. And when I put the diagram down to take a look at the parking that was gonna be there, I don't completely understand pedestrian travel. You know, is it gonna be up against that vegetation wall? But if you're at a residency inn, and I wanna go down to Seaward and look at all the, I guess, coastal buildings, all those restaurants that are there. You remember we had the big wave come over and take off that seawall and knock a couple people down? That's historic Ventura. I mean, it is what it is. So to put Irvine buildings or Mission Viejo buildings in that location, maybe not the best. And I'm gonna throw you a curveball here. So if you've ever been to IKEA, when I went into that project today, I felt like I was in IKEA. I could get in, but I couldn't get out, because there's only one way to get in and get out. But you've got to go somewhere, turn around, and come out. The flow doesn't work for me. And I think, looking at the DRC review, I think they did a spot on job. They did the majority of work for this commission. And now you've gotta come up with some clarification on what was good that they said and what wasn't so good. And I appreciate, Mr. Zucker, your comments about what would you change, what wouldn't you change, I get all that. But I'd also like to say that you have to keep in mind in Midtown, specifically that location, that's a monarch butterfly migration. So why the developer is not including plants that are conducive to monarch butterflies when you have a grove of trees less than a softball throw from that site is not listening to the neighborhood. And I think that's the problem with most development that comes before us anymore. is that developers have a stamp that they want to put in there, a rubber stamp. And even our community development wants to rubber stamp and push things through. I get it. But if you would just listen to the citizens a little bit, listen to what's going on in the community, and try and build a project that embraces all that and you still get a project that's very viable, But it gets that connectiveness for the hotel. It gets pedestrians able to go from the hotel out to Seaward, go across to the west side, walk down the sidewalk, because there's no sidewalk on the east side. That would make sense. But as is right now, this project, while I want something to be built there to get rid of the blight, I don't think it does that quite yet. And I had one other thought. When I was over there on the west side of that project or east side of Seaward, if you've ever been over there, I found a couple monarchs there when we were walking one day and I went back over. There's a stamped concrete area. Apparently at one time pedestrians must have walked there. Maybe it was when Seaward was all one level before the railway. But what's interesting is, is it possible to create an entrance off of Seaward rather than have everybody go up to Alessandro and then use the Alessandro side for bicycle and pedestrian entrance into that site? That could be something that might work out. And again, I just want to stress that I think there needs to be a comprehensive traffic study. that addresses not only traffic and circulation, but also all the proposed developments that I've talked about, and I think Mr. Sirota also talked about. So again, I would really like to see something, and I wore this sweatshirt because this is beach community. It's a sloppy looking sweatshirt, but this is the essence of Ventura. So appreciate your time, thank you.

And we'll shift to comments via Zoom. Our next speaker is Juan Laris, followed by Cherry Egbert. And Juan, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Good evening. Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Juan Laris, and I'm a Midtown resident. Like many in this community, I move through the Seaward corridor regularly. And to see this site is a real opportunity for something meaningful for our community. and for the whole of Ventura. As proposed, this feels like a missed opportunity for all of us. I understand that drive-through uses are permitted here, but this project does not reflect the intent and potential of a site that's meant to serve as a key coastal gateway and a community asset. The Seaward Corridor already lacks a safe and welcoming experience for pedestrians, cyclists, myself included, and these roads are in poor condition and the air is dominated by cars. This project reinforces that reality instead of improving it. We also already have drive-through uses on the other side of the 101. And on this side, we don't need to compound those issues of traffic and fast food that, as others have mentioned, do not serve the health of our community. That matters not just for visitors, but for people who live here. We should be creating spaces that bring community members together and support local businesses in a way that keeps investment in our city rather than encouraging people to pass through, keep going, or not stop at all. A few key concerns I have are that the site design is primarily focused on cars with limited pedestrian or community-oriented spaces. The architecture feels standardized and disconnected from Ventura's unique coastal identity. The heavy reliance on dive-throughs does not align with visitors' serving intent. And the landscaping does not appear to incorporate or prioritize any native plantings, as others have mentioned, the grove right above the site, a nesting site or a resting site or a pastoral site for monarchs. We could encourage that and expand that in this section. As a resident, I want to see the space contribute to the fabric of our community, a place that feels intentional, welcoming, and reflective of who we are as a coastal city. Even the design review committee raised concerns about traffic, layout, and lack of community-oriented design. This project should not move forward as proposed. I encourage you to push for a fundamentally different approach, one shaped by community needs and one that truly creates a place for people to gather, stay, and deeply connect with the beauty that is Ventura. Thank you, and have a great evening.

our final speaker is jerry egbert jerry should be able to unmute yourself hello can you hear me we can if you could speak a little bit closer to like a microphone that'll build there

Can you hear me now?

That's better. Thank you.

OK, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Hi, my name is Cherie. I'm the chair of the Midtown Ventura Community Council. Our board voted to support the traffic study for the area. But the rest of the comment is going to be me speaking as an individual. So I have a question for you, and I want to mention I cannot see the time on this comment. I have a question for you. What kind of city are we choosing to build? Because this decision, it's about our core values and the kind of future we are creating for our community. In our vision statement in the general plan, we talk about being safe for pedestrians, clean, and we specifically say a healthy future for all residents. And in our core values, we prioritize reducing pollution and promoting healthy lifestyles. So as you know, right now, one in three adults has prediabetes, and rates of type 2 diabetes has surged even among our youth. It's doubled in the last 20 years, and a third of adults over 65 have it. It's skyrocketing due partially to processed food and less physical activity. These are our neighbors and our families. And this project is prioritizing convenience over our health, processed food over nourishment, and cars over people. This project moves us away from Ventura's vision of a healthy future from all residents. Drive-thrus mean more idling cars and more pollution and more concentrated pockets of unhealthy air. On paper, this project may look like economic growth, but there are hidden costs, real costs, public health costs. We say we want healthy communities. We say we want safer pedestrian oriented places, but this does the opposite. We, I like to say, we shape our environment and our environment shapes us. This project by design decreases social connection. And if we build for people, we get connection, movement and health. And by the way, this is a beautiful piece of land and it could bring people together and it could reflect the vision of our general plan. And I have to disagree with the applicant about it's doesn't connect to the beach. It very well. could connect to the beach i've seen this done well we did this at california street with you add enhancements to the freeway overpassing and a protection so more people will walk when people feel it's safe and beautiful they will walk and that uh In Santa Barbara, where San Marcos Pass connects at the 154, that's a very busy area, and they made that walkable crossing the intersection, the entry to the 101. So I know we can do it here. So I'm going to ask again, what kind of city do we want? One that invests in long-term health, or one that pays for it later in chronic disease, pollution, and lost community? Please choose the healthier path I urge you to reject. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. That concludes public comments on this item.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk, and thank you to all of our public speakers. We're going to bring it back to deliberation to Commission, and just as a reminder that there is no action being taken tonight. However, we have been asked to provide comments and direction. There were a number of questions. I want to ask staff if it would be possible to put those questions back up those slides. for the Commission, and I'm happy to open up deliberation. If we can use our queue, if it'll work for me, I'll do my best to, yep, excellent. Okay. All right, with that, I'm gonna, Commissioner Abbey, start with you.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. There were, I think there were six questions, so is there more on the, okay. Correct, yeah. I'm going to just take a stab at answering the six questions, if that's appropriate. So, can we go back to the number 38? Okay. I don't know what page it was. You had the first three questions. There we go. Okay. Does the number one does the proposed project design reflect the scenic approach character and beach town identity called for by the. 1989 comprehensive plans PCT. designation and the 2050 General Plan's goals for the Pierpont area? The answer is no. Staff on other pages of the project, and I'm not going to take the time to talk about each one of them, but they talked about this is a gateway. They talked about sort of a higher, even though it allows drive-throughs, These restaurants, drive-throughs with conditional use permits, this seems to be sort of a baseline proposal, a baseline project that kind of scrapes by, kind of gets over the line, but it doesn't point to a higher vision, a higher goal, higher design standards. The design standards that were proposed were pretty minimal, pretty basic. We're not really, I think staff sort of alluded to in its question in asking the question, I think they're asking the right question, because I don't see that the project as proposed currently meets the requirements of the comprehensive plan or the 2050 general plan? Number two, does the site's layout and building placement create an appropriate pedestrian experience and public realm activation for a visitor serving coastal location? I was just thinking, would it be more appropriate for me to address all six, or Chair, would it be better for us to go around the table and addressing question number one first and then take them one at a time?

Commissioner Cometta, I'm going to take your comment, your recommendation.

May I suggest we have overall comments, and then if you were to go item by item so that we could collect all thoughts on each item, that might be the most efficient way to approach it.

appreciate that recommendation for the commission then we would seek i could do with our five minute timing each just your general comments overall and then we could go through question by question okay uh so right with that would you like to add any general comments just before we go into more specifics and then we'll get into questions four five and six and i'll cut myself off here real quickly

I would just say my last general comment pertains to number 4, but I think it's a more overarching consideration. Are the proposed drive-through uses as currently designed compatible with the site's designation, surrounding uses, and the city's vision for this coastal commercial corridor? My general comment is no.

thank you commissioner abby uh commissioner comden general comments thank you chair project okay i'm going to bullet point this again this is an advisory meeting this we're not making hard decisions tonight um i wish the two communities um had the opportunity if i could rewind nine years and when this property came up for sale i wish the two communities had the opportunity to chime in and say, this is an important thing for us. The city should try and consider purchasing it themselves so that we could do something extraordinarily special as a gateway to Ventura. That would be wonderful. That ship has sailed. This is an unusual parcel. I can pro and con this all day. It is a gateway to our city. It's adjacent to thousands of people coming through. And it might be the best opportunity for us to show our best face as people drive through our community. I'd like to ask you to pull up the renditions, the illustrations that they have. And I specifically want to see the one from, not that one, although that's nice. Yeah, that. So, you know, there's some issues that have been brought up, and we'll go through the six questions and answer them to some degree. But this is the view that most people have of this parcel as they drive through, even though this illustration shows on the off ramp, not from the freeway perspective, which may be more obscured than this. I am interested, I've read some comments about the potential for massing buildings. That's interesting to me, even though only 7% of this parcel is buildings. I don't know what the massing might do. Right now you've got what, 90 parking spaces, 99 spaces. That's a lot to me, sounds like a lot. I think that traffic is of paramount importance here. Right now Alessandro is underused, but it soon will be in the next five years perhaps overused. You're going to have the buildings up on Vista Del Mar, you're going to have this project. And I don't know if there's a possibility of ever making it pedestrian or bicycle friendly unless we get the boring company to come through and build a tunnel under the freeway to the beach. I don't know if it's ever possible. I would like to suggest that a traffic study be really in-depthly done so that we understand what's going on. I too, like Glenn, drove the site several times. I went around the hotel. I went around this parcel. I know the elevations and things of this sort. Right now it looks like you've got 28 feet of roadway that takes you down to this parcel as well as the hotel. But also a bike lane looks like it's been permanently installed. So that takes away from that 28 feet. The long and short of it is, if you have 99 cars coming in and out during heavy time, and the hotel use, and the other uses of Alessandro, I think it's going to be difficult to have anything other than difficulty coming ingress, egress of this. And that needs to be really thought through carefully. I would like to suggest, and then I'll leave the floor, is that we work with you to develop some beautiful signage here that is an introduction to our community. It says, welcome to Ventura. Maybe that tower that they were talking about or something even more. I don't want it to become a collection where you have an electronic billboard and it looks corporatized. But I do think there is a beautiful way to introduce our city to people that are coming north. You miss two exits before you get to this sign, but this and California Street are opportunities for people to say, aha, let's explore. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kahnuk. Vice Chair Zucker?

Thank you, Chair. So it's a little hard for me to do the kind of going through the staff questions one by one, because frankly, when I go through them, when I look at these questions, to be honest, I think no, no, no, no, no. They are framed as kind of yes or no questions. And I think a lot of what we're asking for, what we're being asked for is some direction to the applicant, and I'm happy to kind of give that. I see the real challenges for the site, right? I mean, the circulation throughout the area, the kind of challenges to the highway and train tracks. I mean, as folks spoke to, this whole neighborhood is going to look very different five, 10 years from now. And it would have been better for it to be planned in a more cohesive way, but here we are. But I do hear from the applicant, you know, some compelling arguments for, you know, why they can't do some of these things and, you know, it's hard for me to tell. I'm not a commercial real estate person. Yeah, I do hear around the applicant seems to have a lot of experience with restaurants and that being, you know, an option and the viability of restaurants at the site. but of course restaurants aren't the only use that's listed as a kind of a you know a by right use on this you know on this site and and I think it's worth thinking about some of those other possibilities that staff listed when I when I asked about this I think it's possible we've got a bit of a deficit of creativity here of what what could be possible I'm interested in some of the DRC recommendations. I appreciate the applicant is open to a lot of those. I like the idea of connecting the buildings. I think that could make it a little bit more kind of pedestrian feeling where folks might be able to go you know, go get food here and coffee here or, you know, shop at a retail store here. The, I'm curious about kind of the very different answers I got around the potential for coastal views from staff versus the applicant and I'd be, I'd really encourage staff to, staff and the applicant to talk together and see, you know, what might be possible there. Yeah, I'm interested. Yeah, some of the examples of kind of coastal uses that that staff mentioned, the example of kind of how the raising canes, you know, incorporated like a mural or something like that. I think that could really make that that entrance to the city, you know, feel more and more unique at the end of the day, you know, fast food restaurants, chain places. answering a lot of these questions just really don't feel like, oh, this is unique character and highlighting the importance of this site. But maybe there's ways, even with a chain spot, to make it feel a little bit more unique identity. Yeah, I think, yeah, more green buffer zones I think is great. More landscaping, especially, yeah, I like the idea of maybe some landscaping that would be attractive to monarch butterflies or pollinators, maybe some native plants. And then just a thought that it may take some time to work with staff, work with the community on being a little more creative on the site. And I hear around, is the site blighted now? Does it need to be cleaned up? To me, I don't feel like it's horribly blighted right now in the way of having a big, decrepit, abandoned building, or even the way that the harbor and seaward big, empty lot feels very visible. It is because it's depressed. It's actually not as visible. And, you know, we've talked a lot about that. And so I think it's okay to have some time to get this right. Yeah. And would love to see even thinking about, you know, redesigning the streets there to how to get it to be, have more connectivity and cohesion and be more kind of pedestrian and bike friendly. It is... You know this is basically the corridor for Midtown's access to the beach, and I think that's important and then just lost a I'm not You know totally against fast food or drive-throughs at the site I hear the point from from the applicant there But it does feel like if two out of the three things are our drive-throughs It does feel like it kind of dominates it and versus maybe if there were just one You know it would feel a little bit more like a mix of uses and especially given that the you know drive-thrus, fast food are kind of a secondary use of the site. It's not what we prefer here. I think that like a shift there of the type of businesses would help a lot with some of these kind of questions that I think staff are raising. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Winninger? Overall comments?

Thank you, Chair Boussa. OK, I might be all over the place, but I do echo Commissioner Comden and Commissioner Zucker's comments. Those are really good, great comments. I do think, overall, the site is overbuilt. I particularly like drive-throughs, but there's just too many on this site. I would like to ask staff if they come back with this project to do a circulation plan within this plan, including the hotel. I don't know if the pedestrian walkway where it's located right now is exactly where I'd like to see it. I mean, I'd like to see if maybe they can it would be against the like a nice sidewalk or bike path, you know, you know, from the hotel along the Alessandro Drive to the to the restaurant area i did check resident oh i did just so you know i did go to the site today um i feel like it's actually a little more deeper than this actual project rendering um but um that said from the project rendering i would want to see a lot more buffering a lot more greenery um so that people weren't like starkly seeing the the the the buildings right away. I do agree that with the policies that they should be a little more coastal-ish, not just with a wave on the mural, that they should try to look more bungalow-type-ish if they can. But I do just overall think it's overbuilt. Also, I want to let everybody know my son used to work fast food. He got $20 an hour. He works at Tony's Pizza right now, $16.90 an hour. So fast food actually pays more money to employees. And I don't feel like I can judge what people eat or what they need in that moment. Driving down the freeway, their kids might need something fast food. I'm not going to judge them. but I don't like to see the first there's another drawing with the site plan I'm looking at the site plan I just think that first drive-through is over parked you know going through a parking area to get to the two other sites I don't know if you can pull that up please would you like the site plan yes please Yeah, maybe a little zoned in, the overall site plan, yeah. The first drive-through is, and then there's parking right there, people going in and out of that drive-through on the way to the two other sites. And I just think that that is a bad idea. I'd like to see a nice restaurant, with maybe you know maybe attached to like a ramen you know like a nice restaurant it doesn't have to be white service and then maybe a walk-in ramen place or something and then the drive-through and i don't i wouldn't like to see any of the parking in that in that driveway area uh going to the other sites i think it's that's that's just an accident we didn't happen um i did want to make a couple other comments so i do agree with the i would agree with staff that they need a little more buffering that the 20 foot buffer versus the 10 foot buffer um and um you know and just like commissioner compton said we we've missed some of the opportunities here nine years ago And we can't ask the applicant to put a park here or anything. But we can ask them to do some outdoor seating and some additional landscaping and some buffering and some general walking area. But I do believe this is more of a freeway corridor than a coastal corridor. And so I do believe there's some opportunities that we can take advantage of to at least make it a more welcoming place that people can at least if they are driving by they can at least you know sit for a while and and enjoy the area. I don't know if I said this already, but Residence Inn only serves breakfast. It's free breakfast, so obviously people staying there might need to eat some dinner or lunch. So I agree with that that's a good use of the site. And those are my comments right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner McCarty, general comments?

Okay, thank you. Could we bring up slide number 37, please? Policy consideration. So this catches my eye. The second bullet, the PCT designation. So planned, commercial, tourist oriented. It requires well-designed, well-buffered, tourist-oriented development. So my main concern is, does the plan that we've been presented with today really meet that requirement of a tourist-oriented development? Next slide, 38, please. Bullet number, let's see. Bullet number two, development should encourage people to stop, spend time and engage with the area rather than passing through. The next bullet, a mix of uses that is experience driven and complements the neighboring hotel and surrounding residential community, that's preferred. And the final bullet, aligns with the vision. prioritizing thoughtful design and unique offerings. So my main concern is, does this reflect the vision that we want in this area? I have an idea maybe about a unique offering, which I can talk about later if we get time. So this is designated CTO, commercial tourist oriented. The coastal zone designation is PCT, planned commercial tourist oriented. Before we came to the meeting, we got a letter from the applicant addressing some of the DRC concerns. And at one point, the applicant stated, in short, we are not asking the commission to bend the rules. We are following the rules that the city itself adopted for this freeway adjacent auto-oriented commercial site. And I was really disappointed in that wording, in that it's zoned as commercial tourist oriented and planned commercial tourist oriented, but the applicant chooses to describe it as auto-oriented commercial site. And to me, that was kind of tipping the hand. of the applicant. The applicant, Mr. Cohen, speaking for the applicant, said, this site doesn't provide coastal access. It's unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians, although we do have synergy between our project and the hotel. Well, that's good to have that synergy. But the synergy I would like to see, as we've kind of alluded to here, is a synergy between this development and the rest of the community. And that's why I asked the question about developments on Seward. We have some tremendous opportunities with pedestrian and cycling networks that are going to be implemented in the future. And there's a great opportunity for this property to connect with those. When Mr. Cohen addressed the Seward improvements, he said, well, that's long-term. Again, I was disappointed. That tells me that you're not really thinking long-term. You're thinking short-term and a little bit myopically. This is a tremendous opportunity to connect with the rest of Seward area. I wish Bob Guthrie's comments had been printed out and distributed to everybody. Bob, your comments reflect my thoughts to a T, so I need to go back, print those out, and if I could, I would read them over again because he expressed it perfectly. Tina, whose last name I, sorry, I didn't catch, said, we need more imaginative use of this site. And I fully agree with that. I have some ideas. Juan Lars also said something salient in that the plan reinforces the auto-centric reality rather than improving it. We're missing out on an opportunity to improve that site and connect it with the community. And as Cherie Egbert summed up, the project by design decreases social connection. It very well could connect to the beach. And I agree completely with that. There's an opportunity here to really connect with the rest of the Seaward community. I have more and more specific comments later, but that's my overall. It's an opportunity missed by being insular instead of connective and outreaching.

Thank you, Commissioner McCarty. I, from just my general comments, agree with the comments from the Commission, really appreciate the thoughtful feedback that's been given tonight I too I agree that you know understanding by right what's allowed I I think two drive-throughs is too many to me this this is a very special site it's not just another commercial pad it's too Auto oriented right now I know it's been shared it does need a stronger identity and destination quality that speaks to the PCT designation, in my opinion. And those would just be my general comments, but we can go into the specific questions. What I propose is we'll start with question one, since we already kind of started there, and see if there's additional comments from the Commission as it relates to comment one. terms of is this project design reflect the scenic approach character in beach town identity called for by the 1989 comprehensive plans PCT designation and the 2050 general plans goal for the Pierpont area are there any additional comments from the Commission related to this specific question I

Sorry, Commissioner Winnegar. I just have a quick comment about this. I know when we drive down Harbor Boulevard and we see In-N-Out and we see Durant and McDonald's, they don't have, and Motel 6. they don't have the beach character of obviously this PCT beach town. But I think just as a side for the developer, I think the goal here with this staff that is a very, I think it's a really dynamic planning staff, I think THEM HOLDING THE DEVELOPER ACCOUNTABLE FOR DOING SOME TYPE OF CHARACTER AND BEACHTOWN IDENTITY ON PROPERTIES SUCH AS RAISING CANE, WAVE OR WHATEVER IT WAS. is is something that is important so even though we have buildings in the past that have not lived up to this I think it is an opportunity to live up to it now so even if we have restaurants or drive-throughs or whatever they need to look more beachy especially coming up the ramp and and I do also agree with Commissioner Comden you know a suggestion of some type of scenic signage. So I think if the applicant changed the design and offered some more buffering, some better approaches with signage or whatever, I think they could come up to this goal. It's just not there now. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Comden.

Thank you, Chair.

Again, the question does the proposal reflect the scenic approach character of a 1989 comprehensive plan. I'm still grasping at what eclectic beach style looks like and our design standards can't come fast enough because it's one of those things I don't know what I'm looking for but I know when I see it type of thing. That's really hard to build, right? I would say my answer to number one is somewhat, but not clearly. This looks a little more corporate than I might want. However, I don't know what to recommend to change it, honestly. Thanks.

Commissioner McCarty.

So I think Commissioner Winninger's reference to in and out is an appropriate one. This is my community. Seaward, the lanes, Pierpont area is my community. I drive by in and out daily. And it's essentially a sea of cars and not attractive at all. So with regard to question number one, does the project design reflect the scenic approach character? When I envision it, when I look at the site plan and see myself driving along the freeway there, again, all I can envision is a sea of cars stacked up waiting to go through those two drive-through restaurants and for me the answer to question number one would be no that that doesn't in my mind reflect the the character that I think is called for by the comprehensive plan and the 2050 general plan thank you Commissioner McCarty any other comments regarding question one before I move on to question Commissioner Abbey

Thank you, Chair Boussa. Staff, could you put up on the screen, I forget which slide it was, that talked about the 2050 General Plan's goals for the Pierpont area. It might be useful to the Commission to be able to see that. Goal LU5, establish high quality architecture and building design that reflects Ventura's unique beach town identity. I don't see that. And I do want to mention, I think I was expressing my view, but I do like the approach of some of my fellow commissioners to say that rather than be negative and say no, no, no, say here's your opportunity. This is an opportunity. But I will go through these. Goal LU5, establish high quality architecture. We already did that. Goal LU29, maintain Pierpont as a vibrant neighborhood center with attractive coastal oriented services. I think the other commissioners, Commissioner Winninger, McCarty have already spoken to that. There need to be buffers. We don't need to see drive-through lanes. Are these the only ones, or is there a page 16 with more goals?

This is from our zoning code regarding the use permit standards for fast food. Otherwise, we had listed the comprehensive plan, which is in effect.

Oh, right. Let's see, strategic location. This is a strategic location. I want to speak briefly about the neighbors who live in Midtown. You should be able to go either under or over the railroad tracks or around there to be able to walk down, maybe have a walkway down to Alessandro. I know that doesn't necessarily fit with this project per se, but I just want to look at sort of a larger vision. Connecting the community, also members of the community coming from up above, down seaward trying to get to the beach. You've got bicyclist people bicycling on Vista Del Mar. Hopefully there's not a whole lot of more cars that are being directed along Vista Del Mar. There's just a whole other vision. I think Commissioner McCarty mentioned the opportunity to The active transportation plan and routes and so forth, this could be a part of this. It'd be nice for staff to sort of point out those opportunities. This is what you could do. Let's see. Site needs to be well buffered, we talked about that. Is that it for the comprehensive plan? Okay, those are my comments, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Abbey. All right, if there's no more questions or comments related to question one, we'll move on to question two, which asks, does the site layout and building placement create an appropriate pedestrian experience in public realm? I think we've heard multiple comments from Commission tonight in agreement that this is not the most pedestrian-friendly layout currently as proposed. Are there any additional comments from the Commission as it relates to the pedestrian experience of them have not already been shared tonight we talked about the connectivity through the site did not did not feel safe there was parking in driveway areas that could cause for concern um the the the connectivity to the hotel thank you commissioner weiner those were comments any other additional comments around the appropriate pedestrian experience thank you commissioner zucker

Thank you. Just want to add to what I shared. I mean, yeah, you've heard from everybody here, but I imagine the places that there's most need or potential for connectivity for kind of pedestrian experiences is with the nearby hotel and potentially with the kind of development above. The development above might need some redoing of where the connection is or thinking creatively to, yeah, could there be stairs or like a pedestrian walkway down from there or something like that or improvements to sidewalks or whatever. But I think this is where the placement of the buildings I think is a problem. They're each these three islands kind of surrounded by a sea of parking lot and drive-throughs. And so they're not connected to each other. And I imagine for the hotel, I mean, when I first saw the hotel go up, I was like, wow, that's kind of disconnected from everything. It's just like, you know, I personally wouldn't choose to stay at that hotel because there's like no amenities nearby that you can walk to or anything like that. And I think there is a potential for this to be kind of the, commercial center connect to that hotel where someone after a day of being out at the beach in Ventura can go back home to their hotel, have a nice dinner, maybe a drink, and go back to their room to crash for the night. you know, if they were, if the buildings were kind of placed together, could people who are kind of staying for the weekend be able to, you know, talk, maybe connecting the outdoor patios to each other where folks can kind of mingle and whatever. But I think the drive-through, having two of the three buildings have drive-through basically makes that impossible. Like you can't have these drive-throughs that wrap around these buildings and have them connected to each other. And so that's where I think it does take kind of like a fundamentally you know, different kind of reimagining of what types of businesses are there in order to allow for more of that kind of pedestrian connected feeling, the sit and stay rather than just in and out.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Abbey is next if you'd like.

Could you put the site plan on the screen again? I don't want to spend a lot of time because we have a number of things to look at. OK, could you put the pedestrian walkway slide with the overall site plan? OK, so you look at the traffic's all going to be coming to this project's going to be coming in off of Alessandro Drive. So you have almost right away where that first building, the drive-through, you've got to run the gauntlet of cars coming through. Then, as you go across Building 1, then you run the gauntlet of cars coming out of the drive-through. Same thing when you get to Building 2, you've got the drive-through coming out of there.

The placement, and we've already talked about should there even be

I think the pedestrian, you should be thinking, if I'm someone who's in the hotel at the residence inn and I'm thinking I want to get to the beach or I want to ride a bike to the beach or ride a bike on Vista Del Mar down to the state beach, the walkway that gets you to the fairgrounds, you need to be thinking more than just these businesses, how do you impact the tourist experience? So those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Commissioner Abbey. Commissioner Whitaker?

Hi, just a quick comment. Chair Boussa might already know this because she's in economic development, but usually a residence inn is actually used for people coming in for work for the week. And so it does, you can come and stay and go to the beach and do your thing or maybe somebody comes in for an interview or something, but it is usually considered a business type of hotel that people are there for the week or sometimes they're on assignment for two months or something as a contractor or something like that. I just wanted to make that clear. Obviously, THE DEVELOPER PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT HIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE, YOU KNOW, A CATALYST FOR, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS IN TO BE A CATALYST FOR HIS DEVELOPMENT. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER Question three, we had, if we wanna put the questions back up, please, thank you. We also talked about this as well, but achieving an eclectic beach character with those older design guidelines and echo Commissioner Comden's comment on our forthcoming design guidelines, which will be coming to the commission here this August, I believe this summer. And so with that, any other additional comments on the proposed architecture that has not already been shared, which I believe what the comments have been, would like to see kind of more, just more character in general from the design of the buildings. And it sounds like that is feedback that the applicant was willing to hear and take into consideration. Are there any other comments from the commission on this one? Okay. Thank you. All right, as far as the proposed drive-through uses as currently designed compatible with the site's PCT designation surrounding uses in the city's vision for this coastal commercial corridor, again, any additional comments in what has been previously mentioned? Commissioner Comden?

Thank you, Chair. Again, I'm echoing what has been said by a couple other commissioners, which is I'd prefer to see one drive-through as opposed to two.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, and on for our fifth question, should the applicant reconsider the project's development program or building orientation to better achieve the visitor-serving and coastal-oriented goals of the governing plans? The general comments have been yes, they should reconsider the program or building orientation for a better visitor-serving and coastal-oriented achievement. Any other comments specific to that? Commissioner McCarty.

Well, I do have an idea to throw out there, but it may take a couple minutes to explain. Perhaps we should, maybe I can wait until after we finish with all the rest of the questions.

Sure, we'll do that. all right and then finally our question six what landscape improvements with the planning commission prioritize address buffering pedestrian connectivity and air quality we've heard some of those already in terms of screening we certainly would like to see more buffer more trees particularly if there is the consideration of a drive-through where you don't want to see queuing off the highway So the only way to buffer and mitigate that as well as considering local native species as well into that Plan any other comments specifically to that yes Commissioner Abbey Very briefly I went down to the site Earlier this week, and I went I went beyond the site.

I went down to the residence in and Right next to, there was very little buffering from the freeway and the traffic was very, very loud. Now I understand that this project has more land that goes up the hill and it's not, a lot of it, is not right next to the freeway. It's close to the freeway, but not like the Residence Inn. But the pictures that we saw with the drive-through lanes and all the parking lots and yeah, there needs to be a lot more buffering. There needs to be sound. I would like to see not walls per se, but trees and bushes and so forth that provide some view into the project, but also buffer the sound. So it would be interesting to see what landscaping could be done, whether it's berms or rocks or boulders or just trees to impact, take away that loud noise. That'd be my comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Abbey. Vice Chair Zucker?

Thank you. I agree. I think when we talk, you know, maybe a little utopian about, you know, the value of folks being able to kind of walk and stay and just enjoy this site, it is hard when it's, you know, loud and next to the freeway, right? But I do think it's possible to have very significant kind of buffering of the freeway. As the applicant pointed out, there are only building on 7.3% of the site. So there is space, you know, if the project is kind of like redesigned and this is where I do think more kind of consolidation of the buildings, you know, maybe to one side could allow, you know, more landscaping buffering against the freeway on the other side that would actually make it kind of enjoyable to stay and maybe enjoyable to walk from the nearby, you know, developments that have come in around it. And then also maybe in terms of kind of the gateway aspect, you know, if some of what's there do end up being corporate chains or whatever, you know, it doesn't feel as much like, oh, you're just driving through Ventura and that's all you see is just the same corporate chains you see everywhere. There might be some, yeah, some nice vegetation that breaks that up.

Thank you. Commissioner Whitaker.

Can you pull up the site plan again, please? And I know this sounds silly, but does anybody have a red pointer? No battery? That's OK. I'll try to describe it. That's okay, Ms. Farley. I don't know, I can't even see that. We'll see. There we go. Oh, it's not going on the... not screen compatible yeah weird anyway i'll just describe it where it is now the red line i'd like to see that above um to the i guess you'd call it the east uh the east of the the driveway um so it's not going across any parking areas as much as possible or along alessandra road I also know, I actually have family that lives off of Ocean Drive and they do bike a lot down to the Seaward area and I could see them biking to this area as well. And so it would be nice to have this more pedestrian oriented so people could walk if they want or even take a bike. So having a bike lane incorporated into this development and a walkway would be preferred. And again, I spoke of this earlier as well, having some maybe tables to sit down so people can enjoy, you know, it is a loud freeway, but to have some pedestrian, you know, resting area if they choose to and, you know, be outside, because it is beautiful here in Ventura. So those are my additional comments, thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Winninger. And that concludes our comments back on the six questions. And I do want to just offer the Commission any final feedback and comments on this project and Commissioner McCarty.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. And Commissioner Winninger, your mention of being able to bike into this area is a perfect segue into some honest feedback I'd like to give to the applicants. So I have an idea to attract visitors in a unique, imaginative way, consistent with our long-term vision of making Ventura more pedestrian and cycling friendly. And Mr. Tangi, in your hundreds of conversations with restaurant owners, I would bet money that this idea probably did not come up. But let me throw it out there as a visionary plan. Ventura. has a growing and improving set of cycling paths. There's a wonderful path up to Ojai. We have a wonderful path, the Omar Raines Trail, along the coast, which I ride all the time. This area is very popular with cyclists coming down from Ojai, coming down from Carpinteria, coming down from Santa Barbara. The adventure company Backroads now offers kind of high-end cycling trips to this area in which they do two or three rides in this very area, either up the coast or up to Ojai. People pay thousands of dollars to get on these rides, and I kind of have to chuckle when I see them out there when I'm on the road because they're paying thousands of dollars for what I get to do every day for free, and it makes me so glad to live here. Last year, I did a ride in the Tyrolean Alps in the German-speaking area of northern Italy, and they had a tremendous concept called, pronounced in German, Radbar, R-A-D-B-A-R. And I would encourage you to take a look at their website, radbar.it, And what Rod Bar is, it's advertised as, I'm gonna read a little bit from their site. It's a cafe, bar, bicycle grill, like a bicycle grill, and a bike snack bar within a beautiful garden. To eat and drink, main drinks and snacks offered are fresh regional specialties and products. We have a ton of fresh regional specialties and products which we could offer in this area. What's Rad Bar all about? It's a refreshing and well-located rest area, a meeting place for mountain bike and road cyclists and, dare I say it, e-bike fans, nature lovers and families with children, regional and organic foods. We are not a restaurant or a guest house, but we offer a special menu tailored to the cyclists. Our service station offers free and helpful information and material about the area. And as Commissioner Whittaker just was mentioning about the pedestrian path here, if this area, if we were to put a rod bar-like cafe, restaurant catering to the growing number of cyclists that are in this area who love to come and visit Ventura, make that pedestrian walkway a pedestrian slash, bicycle path leading up to a rad bar-like restaurant that takes the place of one of the drive-through restaurants. In my mind, that would be beautiful. And in the long term, it could very easily tie into the bike lane improvements that we mentioned earlier associated with the active transportation plan, those coming on Main Street, those coming down from San Buenaventura State Beach, toward Harbor Boulevard, Pierpont, would lead right to this area. You would get people coming down seaward, and I'm talking about cyclists, coming down seaward from Main Street. You'd have cyclists coming from the beach area, from Carpinteria and Santa Barbara, and I think it would be a wonderful attraction like I say, for the growing number of cyclists in the area who would love to see something like that. It's out of the box. It's a dream. But in my mind, completely consistent with what I and perhaps we envision as how to make this community more pedestrian, tourist, and cyclist friendly. So just throwing that out there, an idea.

Thank you, Commissioner McCarty. Vice Chair Zucker?

Thank you. Appreciate that. And I know you may feel like our ideas are kind of big out there stuff, but I hope you're also seeing that this is the alternative to just saying no to projects that we don't like and trying to give some you know, some direction of what we do like and what we would like to see. And so, you know, I just want to say that, you know, when you look at the site just like from a, you know, normal, you know, kind of development and planning perspective, I see how it can feel like this very auto-oriented spot. But the weird thing about it is how many people do bike down Seward despite how incredibly dangerous it is, right? And people do that and risk their lives to bike down seaward because Ventura was built in this frankly horrible way where we cut off most of our city from the coast with the 101 freeway. And there's only a couple access points. And people really use those access points. And they will use them even more if we're continuing to kind of build out some of this infrastructure that staff spoke to. I think there is real potential. That is what the city's looking to see here. And I think with some reorienting of the site and some really heavy emphasis on landscape and buffering from the freeway, this could feel like a little oasis. taking the peculiarities of the site and using, leveraging them as assets rather than deficits, right? Could this feel like a little, you know, a little hidden gem where, you know, you go, it kind of feels a little bit lush, there's a, you know, spot kind of tucked next to this, next to the hotel where you might be able to, you know, find something eclectic and unique and I know that might be harder to line up than kind of a traditional deal with some acre clients who are big national chains. But I think that this site is really important, and you can hear that it's important to the city. And so we're trying to give some positive ideas.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other comments from the commission as it relates to this project? I hope staff has some good feedback. I hope the applicant has some good feedback. It sounds like the applicant would like to make a Final comment, if that's amenable to the commission.

Yes. Thank you, Chair and commissioners. We want to express our gratitude for all the feedback and comments that we've heard tonight. We had anticipated that we're going to be going back and evaluating what we're presenting, but this feedback's been very helpful. So appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you so much for hearing us and from our community. OK, thank you. Thank you, Steph. Thank you so much for the detailed presentation again tonight. I want to echo the commissioner's comment on that work. OK, moving on to our next item of the agenda, we have planning commission communications. Commissioners, are there any items for clarification or requests for staff at this time? Seeing Commissioner Comden, yes.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. It being Earth Day 56 years ago, some visionary people were thinking about planet Earth in the future. And so I'd like to amend the old phrase and encourage everybody to think intergalactically, but stay active locally because every little bit helps. It's our world. Let's keep it beautiful. Thank you.

I'd love that. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Abbey.

I just wanted to mention I went to Rubicon and saw Somebody to Love. It was a delightful play. They had an extended run. They added a whole week. I caught it on the last Saturday matinee, and I wish I would have extended it sooner so you'd have had time to actually go see the play. But it was a really good play, and the talent of the singers was just awesome. I felt like I was on Broadway listening to those voices, so it was a wonderful experience.

Thank you, Commissioner Abbey. A great reminder of that local amazing arts asset, the Rubicon Theater. Please check it out, as well as some of our other venues around town. With that, we'll move on to staff communication. Is there any communication from our planning staff at this time?

Good evening, happy Earth Day and happy Administrative Professionals Day. I just want to point out that so much of what this commission does has a number of people behind the scenes that work extremely hard on the packet, on all the information. So I really just want to thank all of our administrative staff in our office. Marissa Moncada, who's the acting admin for planning. Kaylee, who's our executive assistant in the department, as well as Heather, Joe Anthony, and Thomas, who are admin in the admin division in community development, as well as Stephanie, who answers phones in the permit center. All those people participate in helping to get your packet together. make sure this room is set up as well as all of our professionals in the clerk's office who are having an event for the municipal clerk week and I believe I'll ask Derek to remind us of that when I'm done with my announcement if you don't mind so truly it's such a group effort to get these packets together and I appreciate all of your attention to detail to make sure that we get it right particularly with the minutes it's extremely helpful so thank you We do have a pretty big meeting at our next month's meeting. It's on Wednesday, May 27th. We have a brief item on pro housing designation. We have Thompson core departments, which I mentioned last time is going to be kicked up to the planning commission. We have program 19 of our housing element, which is a zone text amendment about supportive housing within the city. And then we also have the tree protection ordinance, which came as a directive from council and is definitely something that could have a lot of public comment as well. We've been working quite hard on that. And this comes on the heels of an emergency tree protection ordinance that was adopted by the city council. So this will formally codify that requirement and some additional requirements. So I'm wondering if the commission would be willing to start the meeting earlier. I know all of you have other things going on, so totally understand if we can't. But if possible, I'm asking that we start at 5 p.m. instead of 5.30 to get the meeting started. And so wondering if we could take kind of a poll here. And certainly if people need to get back to me, we can. But does that work? We have a thumbs up. It's Wednesday, May 27th.

I'm going to have to follow up on confirmation on that myself.

Okay. into it though I'm actually gonna be absent for that that meeting of a work trip okay absent okay we have two absences we'll check in with our absent Commissioner from today I'll hear back from you and then I'll circle back with the group but you're you're okay okay great um thank you for that I recognize that this is a huge commitment and really appreciate all of your time I also wanted to go through some projects that went to directors hearing so we haven't talked about this in a while so I I have three months worth of directors hearings to go through and I'll be pretty quick because I know this was a long meeting. So Vault Cocktails had a use permit. This is alcohol service within a parklet and outdoor dining and then change in use to go from a restaurant to a bar or nightclub. Often restaurants act as bars and nightclubs and don't actually get permits to do so. So we're happy to see that people are asking for permits that reflect their actual usage. That was approved. The next item was a tentative parcel map or a lot split. at 300 north venture avenue and this subdivided an existing almost 16 000 square foot parcel into two parcels next slide please uh we had a coastal development permit for an addition um for single family residents and i did talk about this a little bit at 1369 nathan lane And this was basically some minor changes to a single family house, but needed a coastal development permit. So those do go to directors. Next slide. We had a minor variance for front and side yard setbacks at 2335 Sunset Drive. And this was to accommodate an attached garage, and they actually have a three-car garage for an existing single family, and I believe an ADU on that site as well, yes, to accommodate. So they were actually parking for the ADU voluntarily. Next slide. A minor variance was approved for two drive aisle signs at Raising Cane's. This project already went to directors a long time ago, but they did need a signage variance. That got approved. Next slide. A coastal development permit design review and waivers and concessions were approved for a project at 1926 East Thompson. This was a 19-unit multifamily residential development along Thompson. Next slide. There was a coastal development permit approved for a single family addition on Dover Lane. This is an existing single family that just needed 138 square foot addition. Next slide. There was a coastal development permit for the harbor groundwater monitoring wells. This is in the right of way near the Arundel Barranca. and this is part of a lot of the work that Ventura Water is doing in this area. Next slide. There's a use permit for kitty land animal boarding on Portola Road in Unit A, and this is taking an existing tenant space. It's about 2,500 square feet, and doing overnight animal boarding and animal grooming. The next item is a coastal development permit and minor variance for lot coverage and parking requirements for an ADU on Camden Lane. This is close to the beach and in an area where we do require parking. They are actually building an ADU above their garage and would have a garage addition to allow for that ADU parking. Next slide. A minor variance was approved for an accessory dwelling unit at 404 Seton Hall. And this allowed for a detached two-story, 22-foot-tall, 720-square-foot ADU. Next slide. A major design review, lot line adjustment, density bonus waivers, and inclusionary housing plan was approved at 1279 Meadow Street. This is a 14-unit multifamily residence that it's actually built behind an existing single family home on this site. So they've maintained the existing building and then built a multifamily behind it. Next slide. The fish modernization, I guess this is an odd slide. Oh, here we go. Major design review and coastal development permit was approved to update the Ventura fish market And so basically they're going to have expanded facilities for squid processing on site, expanding the existing commercial fish market. So there'll be kind of a roll up and an ability to go in and buy fish. And then there was an update adjacent to Andrea's restaurant and quite a bit of trucking access to that processing facility. So a lot of the conversation was really about circulation on this site because you do have Andrea's and then you have the adjacent uses. So most of the conversation centered around circulation and conditions to keep the trucks separate from regular vehicles. and making sure that it's as quiet as possible. Obviously, it's a commercial fishing facility, but with the kind of adjacencies, a lot of the conditions that were provided were related to having actual operational standards for the trucks. Next slide. And that's it. I am available for any questions. Again, I really wanna thank all of you. You spend a lot of time here, and I think that you have extremely thoughtful conversations, and we all just really appreciate it. It's so helpful for us to have a commission like you, so thank you. Happy April.

Thank you, Director Diamond, and thank you so much for continuing to bring us those thorough reports from the directors hearing. It's really helpful. It helps us stay informed and have that transparency, which is the thing that we've continuously asked. So thank you for that. And Commissioner Whittaker. Yes. Yes.

Thank you director diamond, could you tell us on raising canes that was a CEP for their drive through was the drive through that we just looked at today, would it. Will it come to us because you pushed it up or or it will or because of the zoning.

No so it's actually already approved, so the approval for the actual raising canes entire site where they separated. the lot from the rest of the Target site, and then the building as well as the drive-through were all approved at a director's hearing about a year ago. And then they, in their process of getting permits, realized they needed a variance for some of their larger signage, and so they came back for a sign variance.

Thank you. What I'm asking is the CUP. The CUP went to the director, whereas the thing we heard today of the Alessandro Drive development, will that go to Planning Commission or will that go to director level? Because that would also be a CUP for drive-throughs.

So that's going to Planning Commission.

So is that just a zone difference there?

Yeah, so the clarification is that this one was also being pushed up to the Planning Commission because of the concerns that we were discussing today, that it was similar to the project that would be pushed up on Thompson Court because there were concerns raised about a year ago about the different uses on the site. And so this would require normally a director's hearing, but because of these concerns was brought to the Planning Commission.

OK, thank you.

Thank you. And I think part of it as well was think one of one of the things that I've been asked a lot lately is why certain projects do you get moved to Planning Commission and it frankly is extremely subjective there's no specific guidance we've been talking about if we had guidance that said when to move to Planning Commission it should just be the requirement of when things go to Planning Commission so we're always looking at those things and checking in to see kind of what works what continues to work but I think the reality is when we have a project that wants to check in and kind of get a temperature check because there's so much concern in the community I think that's a good sign for us that we want to come to you and I think tonight is such a good example of how immensely helpful it is to come to you for these types of projects so thank you do want to note one more additional item that on city council on april 28th next tuesday we did go to the coastal commission for the short-term vacation rental regulation certification it was approved by the coastal commission with some modifications as usual so we are going to the city council to get those modifications approved they are extremely minor in nature and don't change kind of the regulations generally as you saw them when they came to you so we anticipate starting to look at renewal of existing short-term vacation rentals and issuance of new permits starting this summer yes Commissioner Vice Chair Zucker

Thank you. I just want to echo that, you know, on the administrative professionals day, you know, just you were doing a fantastic job in our whole, you know, planning department. I just, I think, you know, being on the planning commission for a while, just seeing so much progress in just how just efficiently and transparently and, you know, effectively kind of the departments being run these days and just love to see that. So my quick question was just on the lot split on the avenue, is that because we anticipate kind of a future development there or?

Thank you. Thank you both. Appreciate that. Yes. So that's the first step that they would need to then build, you know, either two single families or a single family with an ADU. Have they submitted for building permit yet?

To clarify, are you speaking of the industrial lot that was lot split?

Oh, if you go back.

I don't know that they've expressed to us that they had a specific development in mind, but they wanted to separate it for the opportunity to either sell off or develop the site. But right now it's just currently a lot split that we know of. Sorry to interrupt that.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. With that, no further questions from the Commission or comments, then I hereby adjourn our meeting of the Planning Commission. Thank you all.