Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're going to get started here.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll be getting started. All right. Ready? Ready. All right.

all right good evening everyone i would like to call to order the regular meeting of the event city of ventura planning commission for wednesday may the 27th the time is 5 31 p.m welcome everybody joining here in our council chambers and virtually on zoom The city of Ventura acknowledges that we are gathered on unceded Chumash land, and a full land acknowledgement policy can be found on our website. I will ask the clerk to please call roll.

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCarty is absent. Commissioner Winninger?

Here.

Commissioner Lagerquist?

Here.

Commissioner Abbey?

Here.

Commissioner Comden? Yes, here. Vice Chair Zucker is absent. Chair Boussa?

Here.

Five members are present. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. We will now open our public communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for items not on tonight's agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. The Commission cannot take action on matters that are not listed on the agenda, though commissioners may briefly respond or request a future items consistent with the Brown Act. Clerk, do we have any speakers for public communications this evening?

Thank you, Chair. I don't see any. If I missed anybody, please raise your hand. And if you're online and you want to speak, please use the raise hand feature. But no, no public speakers.

Seeing none, public communication is now closed. We will now move to the consent calendar. OUR CONSENT ITEMS FOR THE EVENING ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND MAY BE APPROVED BY A SINGLE MOTION UNLESS ANY COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. TONIGHT'S CONSENT ITEMS ARE THE APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 22, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THE PROJECT 261105 TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? On the consent.

Chair, I won't be able, like I have to abstain from approval in the minutes. So if we wanted to split them so we could do a full commission vote on each one. Thank you.

Well, we would still have quorum on both. We could just take them both together, still quorum. Okay. No quest to poll. Any items from the commission? Great.

any public any uh anyone from the public that like to speak on the consent items tonight clerk thank you chair i haven't received any public comments on consent items okay seeing is there none we'll close i'll entertain a motion i'll move do we have a second thank you a motion in a second and i will take a verbal roll call just for this one commissioner mccarty is absent commissioner winneger

Yes.

Commissioner Lagerquist? Yes. Commissioner Abbey? Yes. Commissioner Comden? Yes. Vice Chair Zucker is absent. Chair Boussa? Yes. Four ayes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay, now we will move on to our formal item of the evening, Project 25-0780, Thompson Court Apartments, located at 1655 East Thompson Boulevard. It has a number of requests to the Planning Commission tonight, consisting of a coastal development permit, lot line adjustment, major design review, density bonus waivers, and inclusionary housing plan. before we begin i'll ask commissioners to disclose any ex parte communications no thank you all right with that i would hand it over to staff for a presentation one moment while we have some we have just one moment All right, staff, proceed with your presentation. Thank you.

Yes, good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tyler Walter, and I'm a senior planner with the division. As noted, case before you is project 25-0780, the Thompson Court Apartments. Next slide, please. The subject property is located on the western edge of the Midtown Quarters District, specifically at the 1600 block of East Thompson Boulevard in between Hearst and McMillan Avenues. The site is presently used for commercial use.

Next slide, please.

Above is a photo of the existing site. The property is presently used for commercial use, specifically outdoor storage and sales.

Next slide, please.

Above are some photos of the area surrounding the existing site. This area is primarily commercial business of retail, a hotel, and a mixture of single and multifamily residential. Next slide, please. Major points of note within the vicinity of the site are various contemporary and Spanish colonial influenced architecture and a hybrid of the two. These notable uses include multifamily residential, such as the Thompson Village condominiums, single family residential in the Thompson addition neighborhood, and commercial uses at the Thompson Plaza and Roadway Inn. Next slide, please. There are several multifamily residential projects that have been entitled and some of which have been constructed in the vicinity of the project. This includes the Thompson Village project, the Ocean Avenue Apartments, and the Thompson Cruise Apartments. Next slide, please. The subject property is located, as noted, within the Midtown Corridors Code. Specifically, the lot is zoned for T45 use with a Residential 1 overlay. This recommends new mixed-use buildings, commercial buildings, and higher-density residential infill in order to prevent the sprawling development into nearby farmland and open spaces. As noted, the property is also within the Residential Overlay 1 area, which encourages denser housing that is further stepped back from lower-density development. Next slide, please. The project requires a coastal development permit due to the limited encroachments into the non-appealable coastal zone, including balconies and stoop elements. A major design review is also required because the project proposes 75 new multifamily residential units. In addition to that, the project requires a lot line adjustment to merge the three existing parcels of the project into a single development site. Next slide, please. Additionally, the project as proposed includes inclusionary housing elements and meets state density bonus laws, which makes the project eligible for development waivers and concessions. These items are discussed later in the presentation. Next slide, please. Above is the overall site plan of the project, which shows the building footprint, a floor plan for the first level, and various amenities situated throughout the project site. Next slide, please. Above is the amenities of the first floor showing pedestrian entrances, the garage entrance, the central courtyard space, and the rear outdoor space of the property. Next slide, please. Above is a floor plan for the ground level or first floor of the subject property.

Next slide, please.

And above shows the amenities on the first floor including a courtyard, the pedestrian entrance itself, garage entrance, rear open space, and a gym. Next slide, please. Above is the second floor. Next slide, please. And elements of the second floor, including balconies, elevator, and staircases. Next slide, please. Above is the third floor. Next slide, please. And elements associated with the third floor. It's akin to the second floor. Next slide, please. Finally is the half fourth floor story element. Next slide, please. This includes the clubroom and outdoor roof deck, HVAC and solar panels, and fourth floor units. Next slide, please. And above is the roof plan.

Next slide, please.

Showing the specific locations of the roof plan with solar panels and HVAC equipment. Next slide, please. Above is a rendering provided by the applicant showing the exterior of the proposed building looking to the northwest. As you can see, it displays pedestrian elements, garage elements, balconies, stoops, and an outdoor terrace. Next slide. Above are elevations showing the front or south elevation and the rear or north elevation. Next slide. And above here is the elevation plan showing the side profile of the building, including the left or west elevation and the right or east elevation. And on the far right of the slide is a color and materials board showing various color and material swatches, lighting elements, window elements, and tiles. Next slide. The proposed project was deemed complete in October of 2025, prior to the implementation of the 2050 general plan. As such, the project adheres to the 2005 general plan goals and policies, and was designated as a commerce use prior to the implementation of the new general plan. The project is consistent with the city's general plan goals related to infill development, housing production, and quarter revitalization. The proposed redevelopment redevelops an underutilized commercial site along East Thompson Boulevard with 75 new multifamily residents and eight deed-restricted very low income units. Additionally, the project also supports walkable and transit-oriented development patterns by concentrating housing within an existing urban corridor, which is served by transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. In addition, the project enhances the public streetscape through pedestrian-oriented building design, landscape improvements, and new street trees consistent with the Midtown Corridor's development code and broader general plan objectives. Next slide. The project is also consistent with several goals and policies to the city's 2021 to 2029 housing element by adding the 75 new multifamily residential units as noted and the eight affordable units as noted, which assist to the regional housing needs assessment arena. These three existing parcels within the project have also been identified in the city housing element program 15 to be contributing properties for low income urban infill sites. Also building on that, the project also supports workforce housing opportunities and contributes to the city's regional housing needs allocation, or RHNA as noted, obligations to the current housing element cycle. In addition, the proposal encourages higher density residential development on a major corridor with access to transit services and employment opportunities. Overall, the project represents efficient infill development within the existing urban footprint, which is consistent with the housing elements, housing production and land use goals. Next slide. State density bonus law or DPL is intended to encourage the production of affordable housing by allowing qualifying residential projects, additional density and relief from certain development standards. The project includes eight deed restricted, very low income affordable units, which qualifies it for a 50% density bonus, which allows it to increase the allowable density from 50 units to 75 units. As part of the application, the applicant is requesting nine waivers and three concessions related primarily to the building height, setback, courtyard dimension, access, and parking. Under state density bonus law, the city is required to grant requested concessions and waivers unless specific findings can be made related to the health and safety impacts, environmental impacts, or conflicts with state or federal law. Staff reviewed the request and has determined the project qualifies for the requested density bonus incentives under government code section 65915 through 65918. Next slide, please. Above is a floor plan showing all four levels from the ground level to the upper level showing the location of the affordable housing distribution across the project. Units as shown above highlighted in yellow will be dispersed across building types and floor levels. Next slide. Above here is a table of the affordable unit breakdown by unit type. Altogether, as noted, there are 75 units. Eight would be very low income, while the remaining 67 units would be market rate. Next slide, please. Under state density bonus law, qualifying affordable housing projects may request concession and waivers from local development standards when these standards would physically preclude the construction of the project at the permitted density. Concessions generally involve reductions or modifications to development standards that result in identifiable cost reductions necessary to provide the affordable housing component of the project, while waivers generally provide relief from standards that would otherwise physically prevent the project from being built as proposed. under government code section 65 915 the city is required to grant qualifying concessions and waivers unless specific findings can be made as noted before related to health and safety environmental historic resources or conflictions with state and federal law Above are the first five of the nine waivers being requested, which include a reduction in the 10 foot front yard setback from 10 feet to zero feet, decreasing the rear setback from the three story elements and above. Specifically in this circumstance for residential one overlay, floors one through two can have a 20 foot setback while floors three and above require a 30 foot setback. The applicant is requesting in the second waiver, a reduction in the rear setback from the 30 foot minimum for the upper two stories to be reduced to 20 feet. Excuse me, the third story as the fourth story meets that requirement. The third waiver pertains to subterranean parking permit, which shall not exceed beyond the building footprint and may extend to a height of three foot max above the finished grade. And this proposal in Waiver 3 requests that the parking element extend beyond the building's rear footprint. The fourth waiver pertains to patios, uncovered stoops, roof overhangs, and awnings, which is allowed by the code to be encroaching 8 feet maximum into the required setback. The applicant is seeking a waiver to allow for a total of 12 feet and 7 inches into the setback instead. Finally, for the fifth waiver, the courtyard housing hasn't allowed lot width between 10 and 150 feet. The applicant instead is requesting that the courtyard housing element have a lot width of 200 feet instead, given the property size. Next slide. Waiver six and nine pertain particularly to access requirements, height ratios, and courtyard-specific dimensions. Specifically for waiver number six, this required by the T45 zoning, elevator access from subdomain and parking may only be provided between the garage and the second story. The applicant instead is requesting that the elevator be accessed to all four stories of the building, seeking waiver number six. For waiver number seven, the minimum courtyard dimensions for a courtyard-type building shall be 40 feet in width when it's on the long axis and the courtyard is oriented in east-west direction, as this building's proposed. Instead, the applicant is seeking a waiver for the building to have a 30-foot long axis for the courtyard. Waiver number eight has a suggested height ratio which follows for buildings that are 3.5 stories, it would have a 35% two-story element, 50% three-story element, and a 15% four-story element. The applicant is instead seeking a three-story building to have a 100% height ratio for all three stories. For waiver number nine, access to no more than three second story dwellings shall be through an opened or roof but not enclosed stairway, as the applicant instead is seeking the 75 units to all be accessed through open staircases. Next slide, please. The applicant is requesting three concessions as part of their request. This includes the increase in the height in the building and the reduction of the parking. Specifically, the first two requests allow for the third story of the building to be constructed and a partial fourth story to be constructed. It should be noted that concessions do not necessarily are required individually for each individual increased story, but the applicant has elected to make each concession for concession one and two to be the third story and fourth story respectfully. Finally, the third concession would reduce the number of required parking spaces from 107 to 57, which will be described in the next slide. Next slide, please. For standard parking requirements, the project would require 107 parking spaces in total, or with density bonus law, that number could be reduced to 82. The applicant, however, is proposing 57 total off-street parking spaces for the 75 total units, which is being requested through concession number three. Next slide, please. Above is the off-street parking plan and the subterranean parking as shown above. Next slide. Above is that same set plan with the electric vehicle parking, regular and compact parking spaces, ADA parking, motorcycle parking, bicycle parking, as well as storage on this level. Next slide. Above are building cross sections with the side profile looking to the east and the side profile looking to the west. The entire building at its tallest extent from the ground level to the highest point of the four story element would be 49 feet and six inches in height. Next slide please. Above is the landscaping plan. The project includes a comprehensive landscaping plan intended to soften the appearance of the building, enhance the pedestrian envelopment, and provide functional open spaces amenities for the residents. The central courtyard serves as the primary shared open space and incorporates raised planters, canopy trees, seating areas, and decorative paving elements. Additional landscaping is provided along the rear terrace, roof deck areas, the side yards of the property, the front yard of the property, and includes drought tolerant planting, shade trees, and additional outdoor planters. Along East Thompson Boulevard, the project introduces new street trees, parkway landscaping, and widened pedestrian improvements intended to reinforce the walkable character along the Thompson Boulevard corridor. Overall, the project substantially increases the vegetation and landscaping on a site that is currently largely paved and underutilized. Next slide. Prior to tonight's planning commission hearing, the project went to two design review committee hearings, making tonight the third public hearing of this project. The two DRC meetings were held in December of 2025 and February of this year. During both hearings, public comments primarily focused on concerns related to the building height, the massing, the privacy, shading, and parking impacts of the surrounding neighborhood. Following the initial hearing, the applicant revised the project to incorporate additional landscaping and screening, refined facade treatments and materials, and reduced the number of requested waivers from 11 to nine. Despite these revisions, the DRC continued to express concern regarding the overall scale and massing of the project, particularly along the northern elevation and upper story design. Ultimately, the design review committee voted three to zero to recommend denial of the project based on these remaining design concerns. Next slide. Following the design review committee hearing in February, the applicant revised the project plans in response to comments from both the DRC and members of the public. Revisions included enhanced landscaping and screening along the northern property line, refinements to the building's exterior materials and color palette, and additional architectural detailing intended to soften the appearance of the upper stories and improve facade articulation. The applicant, as noted previously, also reduced the number of requested waivers from 11 to nine and further modified the building to include a partial fourth story element and additional residential units through the application of state density bonus law. The revised parking maintains the same overall parking count, including ADA, EV capable and bicycle parking spaces. Next slide. The project site currently consists of three separate parcels that are proposed to be merged into a single development parcel through means of a lot line adjustment. The merger is necessary to accommodate a unified site design, circulation, parking layout, and the overall development footprint associated with the proposed department project. Lot line adjustments are typically processed as a ministerial action administered by the planning division in coordination with the public works department and surveying team, and generally do not require public hearing. However, because the lot line adjustment is part of the larger development proposal, it has been incorporated to the broader entitlement package being considered by the Planning Commission tonight as part of the project approvals. Next slide, please. As of 3 o'clock this afternoon, planning and admin staff have received approximately 60 public comments on the project, with received comments both supporting and opposing the project. Comments in support of the project come from individuals believing that the new use would additional housing and affordable housing into the area as well as making the Thompson Boulevard corridor more pedestrian friendly. Comments in opposition from the project come from individuals believing that the new use would not be appropriate for the area given the building's scale and massing, concerns about the building's location relative to single family residential development, and concerns about the total off street parking provided with this project relative to the number of residential units. Next slide please. The project has been reviewed against the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and has been found to be categorically exempt pursuant to section 15332 as inbuilt development class 32 under CEQA guidelines. These CEQA findings pertain to the project being consistent with the general plan designation and policies, the location of the project being within city limits, having no known endangered species habitat on site, and the approval of the project not being negatively impacting to traffic, noise, air, or water quality, and can be served by all required public utilities and services. For the first CEQA finding, staff determined that the project is consistent with the city's general plan applicable zoning regulations. The site is designated as commerce in the 2005 general plan and is zoned T45 general urban within the mixed use development code with a residential one overlay. Both of these support higher density residential infill development along established urban corridors. The project utilizes permitted courtyard housing and stoop frontage building types and generally complies with the applicable Midtown Corridors Development Code standards with requested waivers and concessions processed pursuant to state density bonus law. For the second CEQA finding, the project site is located within Ventura city limits and is approximately 0.625 acres in size and is surrounded by existing urban development, including residential, commercial and transportation related uses. Staff therefore determined that the project qualifies as infill development within urbanized areas consistent with the requirements of class 32 exemption. For the third CEQA finding, the project site has been developed and has been operated as a commercial property within an urban setting for at least the past 60 years. Due to the disturbed nature of the site and surrounding development patterns, staff determined that the property does not contain habitat value for endangered, rare, or threatened species. and finally for the fourth and final sequel finding staff determined that the project would not result in significant impacts related to traffic noise air quality or water quality the project is consistent with the type of compact housing infill development anticipated through the environment through the midtown quarters development code framework and the site can be adequately served by existing utilities and public services next slide Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Coastal Development Permit, the lot line adjustment, the major design review, and the density bonus waivers and concessions as conditioned. Attached to your packet is the resolution with the draft conditions of approval for your review. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions the Commission may have. I'll also note that the applicant does have a presentation for the Planning Commission. That said, this concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Tyler. All right. Thank you for clarifying around the applicant presentation.

Commissioners, are there any clarifying questions for staff before we move to the applicant presentation?

And we want to utilize our ‑‑ are we utilizing our ‑‑ perfect. Great. All right. Let's use our tech.

First up, Commissioner Comden.

Good evening. Thank you, Chair. A couple of procedural things. There were some letters from the public about noticing. Are we satisfied legally that this has been properly noticed?

Yes, we are. There was an initial issue very early on in the process to the extent it could be remedied. It has been. All current noticing is correct.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. I kind of want to know how we got here because this seems to be a lot of ask and the fact that staff is recommending it. Can we revisit the process by which this went through the city a little bit? I'd like to understand. I think everybody here would like to understand that a little bit more.

Sure. Is there a specific process or just from start to today?

Well, it's been going on for quite some time. But there's a lot of moving parts to this. And I'm just wondering, was the city providing notes and going back and forth as this was being developed? Or I just want to get some more clarification on how this

Back and forth between staff and the applicant is very common for any project in the early process. When we first get a project, it goes through an internal process called the Development Advisory Committee, where all the departments give comments and concerns about the initial project submittal to the applicant to address those comments. And part of the reason why it took about a year and some change between the initial submittal and today was addressing those said comments and going back and forth between staff. The first round of comments, I'm trying to remember when this first went through in early 2025, came to the concern that there may be parking issues that may not be satisfied. And there was back and forth about whether or not this would be applicable to AB 2097, which that state law allows for no parking requirements if they are within a high density, a high capacity transit corridor. after determining with the city attorney's office that was determined, for instance, that could not be eligible for said thing because the areas that would be eligible for AB 2097 would be near the Metrolink station in Montalvo, the Amtrak station in downtown, and the Five Points bus transfer station about half a mile to a mile to the east of the project. So that required the applicant to go back and get a little more creative with how they could meet these items and still provide the park and they were being provided. And that was at one, that was probably determined earlier this year following DRC review. And also some redesign happened between design review from the initial submittal and how it originally looked to where it came from to hit today. I'm trying to think of the, But following the first couple rounds of review when non-planning departments didn't have any comments that could affect the overall design of the building, that's when it proceeded to a design review committee to get the first round of feedback. And the initial round of feedback tried to stay focused primarily not necessarily about whether the use was set appropriate or not or appropriate for the area, but more of how the building looked aesthetically in comparison to surrounding uses. And one of the comments that was brought up was that the building looked a little bit stoic and cold compared to other buildings, which was why the applicant responded by implementing certain tile work to the building, specifically on staircases, archways, and creating more of a unified stucco design so that the building would look a little less busy but still have horizontal elements so that the building would not appear too tall. Which is why in both the original and the resubmitted plan set on the very top level you see a different color element between the kind of off-white stucco and a more brown type of material. And in between that said hearing and tonight's hearing, the applicant took some more of the DRC's comments and adjusted, for instance, adjusted the balcony elements, adjusted the lighting elements and landscaping. But ultimately there was certain disagreements between what the DRC was looking for and what the applicant was providing, in particular the height of the building, because the applicant honestly just said that if it got to a point where the building had to be shrunk in height it would just not make this project rendered feasible and that's understandable I mean I understand that doesn't really change what the DRC has to say but that was one of the reasons why the applicant on certain elements in terms of the building of the height of the building and the amount of parking provided could not really adjust that just because of their what's feasible for them and what's what they're capable of doing on their end okay

Thank you. I'm going to rapid fire three questions, and I'm going to let someone else have a go at it and might come back. Of the new construction on Thompson adjacent, you know, within a quarter of a mile either way, do any of them have a zero setback as this is being requested? Or do all of them have a setback on the front? Do we know?

We can look, I don't have that exact stat on the end.

As far as semi-subterranean parking, I think one of the issues that makes this taller than it might be is because the parking is not completely underground. Do I have that correct? That is correct. So the first story is literally like five feet up.

I'd have to double check the exact one. It's my understanding off the top of my head that the semi-subterranean parking goes about, at its greatest extent, about a yard over the grade itself.

Okay. Are there any other projects that have been approved or built that have semi-subterranean parking such as this?

I would have to look to see if the projects in the immediate vicinity do so. I know off the top of my head it's not in this immediate vicinity, but the projects down in Front and Laurel had some elements of semi-subterranean parking. But those ones had to be amended to be a little bit taller due to a high water table. I don't know if this area specifically has a high water table that required semi-subterranean parking, but I know for some of these projects, especially ones that are bordering or within the coastal zone, that is a common area of concern so that there's no flooding during a rain event.

Understood. Last question for this round. One elevator for this many units, there's going to be 50 units on the second floor or above that. Is this... A concern, are there other buildings of any similar size that have more elevators?

The closest thing I could think of would be the Front and Laurel project that has the same number of elevators. But again, I can take a look to see if the other projects in the immediate vicinity have the same number of elevators per unit or has multiple elevators. But it's my understanding that it's pretty commonplace for these types of projects just to have a singular elevator.

Okay.

And it should be noted that one of the waivers for this project is so that the elevator can access all four of the stories instead of just one. Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

Thank you. I'll be brief. I I do want to go over my housing law a little bit one more time for this because they're providing very low that they can have unlimited waivers.

Yes, they are providing 15% very low income housing, which qualifies them for up to three concessions. And no matter the amount of, if you qualify for density bonus law, you can have an unlimited number of waivers. It's just the concessions that are capped depending on the number of affordable houses being provided ratioed to the amount of units in total.

And the eight units is 15% of the 75? Correct.

I'm sorry, not correct on the 75. It's on the base density of 50.

Oh, okay, all right, thank you. And one more thing, I noticed in the staff report that it said that the DRC denied the project. But then it said that, I kept reading it over and over because I kept thinking that has to be a mistype, but I just want to make sure. So it was denied at DRC in February, but then the applicant actually revised it to increase the number of units.

Yes.

Out of partial fourth floor and it never went back to DRC?

No, following the DRC hearing on February 4th, the DRC opted, offered the applicant to come back to a third DRC hearing and the, to discuss further, the applicant believed that there would be no further constructive discussion that had come of that. So they opted to proceed forward to a planning commission hearing following the second DRC. It is for what it's worth, quite unusual for a project to go to more than two DRC hearings.

Okay, just one more question. The parking, again, that's a waiver or a concession?

That would be a concession, concession number three.

Okay, and they're allowed up to three?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Largoquist.

Thank you, Chair. Following up on Commissioner Winninger's question, so explain to me why we went from 70 units to 75 units.

That was to increase the number of affordable housing units that would be provided in the project, further aligning it with the housing element, but also by increasing the number of units and the number of affordable housing units to offset the construction of additional affordable housing units, they would be eligible for three concessions, which the applicant, go ahead.

Sorry, but when it went to the DRC, were they proposing eight? Very low income, or no, there was a different ratio, right? Correct. And so they moved it, and so they changed it to eight.

From seven.

And that increased their, the overall allowance, is that what I'm hearing?

Yes, they were able to go up to three total concessions from I believe it was one at the initial one because they had broken it down to a mixture of low income and very low income. And by increasing the ratio of very low income units, they could then increase the number of concessions being requested.

did that increase the number of allowed units overall? So was it originally, so we're starting at a base of 50, and now they've met the maximum, which is 75. Was the original maximum 70, is what I'm asking?

I'll double check the exact amount from the DRC, but it's my understanding that it was 70.

So along those same lines, one thing that was missing from the entire report is how the baseline was, and I know I did my homework and it's a by right, but it would be really helpful, I think, to explain how that by right 50 units is determined by the city.

The 50 units was calculated by the number of units that the applicant could legally build on the property if they followed the regulations of the T45 zoning with the residential one overlay with the height required and with the setbacks required.

And that was based on all three lots already?

Yes, of all three lots merged into a singular lot.

So my understanding was this project was originally not coming to the Planning Commission and I would really like an understanding of that process and why that was going to be with such a controversial project, why it would even, I just, I was very confused by that.

so i can jump in thank you for the question um so generally um this type of project would go to a director's hearing because there are no there are no aspects of the requests that actually trigger planning commission review concessions and waivers don't trigger planning commission review that being said you can see all the people in the room and all the comments that we received in the past and just the complexity and length of time that this project has gone through our review process which is unfortunate and atypical and something we are trying to work on to make sure that things don't sit for this long. And so as a result of that, kind of the complexity of the project, the location, it was my determination to bring this to the Planning Commission. And so here we are.

So based on that, if the Planning Commission decides to also deny the project, then what happens?

um so if we can discuss a little bit with legal about what your limitations are in terms of approval or denial of the project there are extreme limitations in which you can deny the project should you do so within that framework um it would be denied and then the applicant or anyone else could appeal that decision the same way they could if you approve the decision and it would go to the city council um thank you for that i just wanted that all that to be very clear um

So getting back to the design of the building, how many, I was very confused between the reports and then the actual, what you just presented, how many staircases are in this building?

There are two staircases in this building. One is located on the western end of the courtyard and then another one on the northern end of the courtyard. There are, oh, sorry. Oh, there's a third one on the south side of the one. I guess I just didn't label it on the plan set. But there are three total staircases.

Do all three serve all stories?

Yes.

Did the fire department approve? I assume we had the approval of the fire department.

Yes, the fire department provided their conditions of approval. And any further review they would have would be a building plan check.

And going back to the high quality transit area, I'm sorry, I still wasn't clear on exactly, so that is not applicable, correct?

No, this has been determined to be outside of areas that are AB 2097 eligible.

Okay, so the vast limitations in parking is being requested strictly under a concession?

Correct.

I'm gonna let somebody else ask some questions, thanks.

I will add in, though, going back to Commissioner Comden's question about adjacent uses and setbacks. The Thompson Cruise project on the existing map to the east of this project, it's set back 10 feet from the street, but there are elements that are up to the property line, such as outdoor patios and stuff on the ground level and upper level. We're still looking for anything more on Ocean Avenue and Thompson Village.

I have a few questions. Could you please pull up slide 31 and I think Director Diamond this speaks a little bit to just what you were saying and Commissioner Lagerquist question 31.

Maybe it was 32, I might have wrote that down.

Essentially, I wanted to be able, the slide that identified what we can legally approve or deny. And I would like that clarity, that further clarified by legal, if we could get to that, just so we make sure that we are all clear on what it is we are and are not allowed to.

I don't believe there was an explicit slide that said what the limitations or privileges of the Planning Commission could do. I think that was just through discussion.

Okay. Well, then I'll ask.

Would you like me? Sure. Specifically with respect to waivers and concessions, they are mandatory unless this body can make the findings required by state law, which I think we listed a few of them. The one that is by far the most common would be a specific health and safety, a threat to health and safety to the public. And just to clarify, the burden of proof is on the city to make this finding. We cannot require the developer to provide evidence to the contrary. We are required to make this finding by preponderance of the evidence, which is a reasonably high standard.

meaning this group of five here tonight would need to have specific evidence of reasonable threat and health and safety yes as to specific waivers or concessions right which i believe were apologies the slide 34 and 35.

Alternatively, just to be clear, the standards for waivers and concessions are slightly different. Waivers need to be necessary for the construction of the building with the requisite density. So hypothetically, if you were to make a finding, again, by preponderance of the evidence, based on specific findings made by this body, that a specific waiver would not be necessary to physically construct the building at the requisite density, you could deny that waiver. Concessions are simply by right. They are allowed them, again, absent threats to health and safety based on the percentage of affordable units.

So the 57 parking spots under concession would have to be, we'd have to prove a reasonable doubt of life and safety.

I'll find the precise language for you. Give me a second.

Thank you.

I'll also just add, going back to adjacent projects, the Thompson Village project for Commissioner Comden is five feet from the property line, which is the one to the very far west of the site.

Here's the quote, a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

Thank you. Commissioner Abbey?

um i have a number of questions but i'll try to limit the number that i have in the first round staff my first question is regarding coastal development permit it said that part of this project is it falls in the coastal zone yes the very northern edge of thompson boulevard is the outmost extent of the co of the non-appealable coastal zone and there is some encroachment of the building particularly the balconies and the stoops that go maybe a foot or two into the coastal zone so for safekeeping we declared that that would be require a coastal development permit for the entire building even though it's just these said elements that technically hit the coastal zone okay so how many feet did you say it goes north of I don't have the exact number my guesstimate is that it goes about three feet into the coastal zone itself because it encroaches about three to four feet into the public right-of-way, and that approximate area where the public right-of-way is is the approximate extent of where the coastal zone ends.

Okay, let's see. Yeah, I have a follow-up question regarding the parking. So going from, can you go to the parking slide? I think it's around page 37 of the slides. Yes, that's it. So under the city municipal code, 107 units, and there was a slide that walked us through that, so that was very helpful. You're saying under density bonus law, 82 are required. So I understand that under DBL, density bonus law, that you can have less. But how did we get from the less of 82 down to 57 once again?

57 is the number that they are proposing and 82 is the number of parking spaces they would be required if they follow density bonus law and weren't and we're not requesting any waiver or concession or a variance for that or well this is a form-based code or any wave warrant or exception for that matter for parking

is this one of those instances where we have some discretion whereas some of these things under density bonus law if they want a concession they get it we have no right as a local entity to override the state mandate under density bonus law i'll defer to city attorney for that

Broadly speaking, concessions are not discretionary, period. I need to double check a little bit with respect to the density bonus law because it's slightly different potentially. Concessions generally are applied to local conditions. Give me a few minutes and let me lock that down for you.

Okay, yeah. Thank you. I will need that information. I thank you for looking into that. Let's see. A couple other commissioners brought up the issue of the added four-story element. So DRC, as was mentioned before, reviewed this, was concerned. Why did the developer, I know they can answer that for themselves when they come up, but why were they not heeding the message earlier that there was concern about that issue?

I can't speak for the developer themselves, but the developer had indicated to the design review committee at both the second and first hearing that decreasing the size of the building would render the project infeasible. So it was not that they were ignoring or defying anything the DRC was saying. They were simply trying to address the comments that they could address and provide reason and rationale for comments they provided that they could not address or would not address because of said reason.

Okay. So I understand that they maybe didn't want to go that direction, but not only did they not go that direction in height, they added a story. So the pull is in one direction and yet we get an additional story. How did that come about and what's the necessity

That came through the determination that the project would not be eligible for AB 2097. It was still being legally determined at the time it was going through the motions of the design review committee, because there has been back and forth about certain projects being eligible or ineligible for this project. And the applicant had brought over a SCAG diagram that showed that there was a high-quality transit corridor, but it was determined that that high-quality transit corridor was a vision plan for 2050 and not an existing corridor at this time. After reviewing that with the city attorney's office, that's when it was determined that they would need some type of variance waiver warrant or exception for this project to decrease it. Or if they wanted to, alternatively, they could do a concession or waiver to their choosing to decrease the amount of parking so that they could be eligible. And this came following the recommendation of denial from the DRC, which was hence why there was a little bit of a gap between the February DRC and tonight's May meeting. that's when they realized they needed to increase the number of affordable housing units in order to be eligible for additional concessions and to offset the sunken cost loss for that additional unit. That's when it was determined from the applicant that they would need this many additional units. And because of the existing size of the building, they had to go up to a partial fourth story, which is why there was a fraction or so of And the idea behind that from the applicant was that they would place these units facing the front of the building so that it would have less of a visual impact on the rear side where there are existing single family residences.

Okay. I do have a number of other questions, but that's probably my time for now.

Thank you. Commissioner Laguerre-Quest.

Thank you, Chair. What percentage of the building is the fourth floor?

I'll look for this specific percentage quickly.

And while you're doing that, my question actually goes back to legal. Could you just talk a little bit more about the notification, what that issue was, just a little more detail?

This might be better directed to Shanna. She was involved with it.

Okay, that's fine.

We've actually put together a few slides that are hidden, and I'll unhide them real quick and show them.

Great.

There we go. All right. So the initial application came in in early 2025. And at that time, the staff person assigned to it had initiated doing a courtesy notice. But at some point that did not occur and that notice didn't get sent out to the neighbors. So upon the project being noticed for the design review committee in December of 2025, A number of the community members noted they'd never received that initial courtesy notice. And so unfortunately, the courtesy notice is something difficult. We can't go back in time to rectify it. And so they've been excessively noticed in this case in places where we didn't need to, to make sure that they were noticed appropriately for DRC at both meetings. sending out additional notices for a meeting that was continued and then for tonight's meeting we sent out a letter notice that was more detailed than we would normally send that included a letter in an envelope to ensure that that was received by those neighbors so although that initial courtesy notice was not posted or sent to the neighbors they were aware of that through mailed notices and signpostings at every other appropriate hearing body that was held So although we can't go back and fix that courtesy notice, every meeting and hearing that was held was properly noticed.

We can move on other questions while he's getting that. Excellent.

Commissioner Comden.

Thank you, Chair. Is there an overhead slide showing the, like a Google Earth view from top down showing Thompson and Cross Street?

I don't believe so, but I can gather one and drop it into the folder if you give me one comment.

Sure. Let me go on to ask, parking ingress and egress will be onto Thompson?

Correct.

And are there any other similar structures that have that type of orientation? Thinking back, the things that we've seen or have been built seem to have either alleyways or side entrance exits. This might be kind of the first of its kind to exit and enter off of Thompson?

I do believe Thompson Village takes their primary access off of Thompson. There is an alleyway off of the back, but their primary access is off of Thompson. The Thompson Cruise apartment is on a corner, and so they get the benefit of having both of those options, and so they do have access from the side street along Cruise instead of along Thompson. Where properties do take advantage of having either a through lot or maybe having a corner lot, they often do take access from both points. The front street projects do that. In this case, they only have front access along Thompson, so there's not really any alternative other than that.

Okay. So thank you for pulling up this slide. This will do. On Thompson, at this proposed site, is parking on Thompson overnight allowable?

I believe along Thompson there are time restrictions on a variety of parts of the properties. There are red curbs along this property because there's a variety of driveways that would be removed and potentially those red curbs would be removed with the development of the project increasing parking. But there are one hour and two hour parking restrictions within the area present. Correct.

OK. And then I just wanted a clarification. The courtyard I think was described if I'm not wrong as a quasi public space.

The courtyard on the screen, as you can see, would be accessible to the public through that entryway. There's no gated entry, so folks from the community could walk in. It's mostly private for the residents that live there. It's not inviting people in, but it isn't closed off with a gate.

Right. Yeah. The other one that had a description like that was the one at San Hone at Thompson. And also the one at Seaward at Harbor is talking about public space in the midst amongst these private residences.

The Anastasi project, which is the one on Harbor, it is more mixed use. There are live work units. There's more commercial units. There's actual coastal parking required as part of that project. And so I would say that is meant to be more engaging with the public. In this case, although the public can access it, I don't believe it's meant to be a public accessible courtyard.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Commissioner Abbey.

Thank you, Chair Boussa.

Let's see.

Okay, so the main courtyard, so it's talked about east-west orientation. The code says there needs to be 40 foot by 30 foot. This is 30 by 30 feet, correct?

Sorry, can you repeat the very last part?

Okay. I'll just repeat the whole thing. So the main courtyard. in the report it talked about there being a requirement for 40 foot by 30 foot minimum for the courtyard in the building, the main courtyard, and yet this is 30 by 30 and I understand they're asking for a waiver on this. I'll ask this question and I'm really sort of by implication asking the applicant, but I'll ask you. Maybe you know the answer. Why did they go with a 30 by 30 courtyard when they could have gone with a 40 by 30?

Part of that was the railings from rail to rail being 30 feet and the location of the walkway or breezeway between the accessing all the units from the courtyard. So when you measure it just from that rail, from rail to rail looking from north to south on the narrow end of it, it measures to 30 feet. And the courtyard in total because of from rail to rail as a result is an 80 by 30 courtyard. And also just to sidetrack just a moment, but backtrack, regarding the fourth story element, it's at a 37% ratio to the building footprint.

Thank you. Okay, on the sidewalk on Thompson, if I read it correctly, it said that there was a six foot wide sidewalk and an additional six feet I think it was between the sidewalk and the curb, for a total of 12 feet, is that correct?

It varies depending on the sidewalk itself. There is some sidewalk that does go 12 feet to the curb from the, as it exists now, I don't know if it's exactly 12 feet, that goes from the curb to the edge of the sidewalk, but is broken into a shorter segment where there's trees planted or if there's just empty gravel patches. But when it's said and done, let me look at the exact number. OK. That's so tiny. It would be six feet at the sidewalk in total.

OK. So there are some places where there's not 12 feet of cement. Would it be due to tree wells as the primary reason?

Right. Yes, it would be primarily six feet.

OK. And then also the code requires that the courtyard-type building not be broken up into separate buildings if it's more than 150 feet. And yet this is a continuous mass up to 200 feet. And again, the developer is requesting 200 feet. Why?

I can defer to the applicant for why they're specifically requesting that. We just take what they had provided to us and proceed forward.

Okay. All right. I'll stop there. Thank you, Chair.

Yes.

I have reacquainted myself with the parking requirements in the density bonus law. It's been a little while. My apologies. The way it's framed actually in the chart is slightly misleading. The density bonus law does not prescribe an express parking requirement for projects. What it does is it creates a ceiling on what cities can apply for density bonus projects, broadly speaking. So hypothetically, the developer could use the density bonus laws, parking ratio guidelines to require the city to prevent the city from requiring parking in excess of 87 spaces without using a concession. To get lower than that, since they're requesting a waiver of the city's guidelines, which does require a concession. Does that make sense?

Yeah, for the most part.

So it creates a ceiling on what a city can require rather than a floor.

If the city can require up to 87, can we still require that?

They're using a concession to get below that number. So without a concession, we could require up to 87. With a concession, we can't require anything.

This had a parking concession.

Yeah.

One of the three.

Exactly.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Whitaker?

Thank you.

I'm sorry to believe we're, I know we keep asking kind of the same questions, but could they have asked for the parking concession, quote unquote, under a waiver? Or how is that different?

They could have there's different findings on whether or not we can deny the project based on it. Waivers are unlimited but there's a lower ceiling for recommendation of denial effectively concessions. We would have to make an argument that the project is of a health and safety concern to the community and find that the concession is not appropriate. Otherwise for waivers they just make the argument that the project would be infeasible and it would be the burden of proof on us to prove that they would not be able to do it. So there's a higher ceiling for them to meet. under the concession and so they usually will request the things that can't change in their project in order to proceed and waivers would be things that they might have some flexibility although in this case it would still be a difficult thing for us to recommend denial I can just to clarify that just a little bit more waivers are required to be necessary to construct the building at the density they're allowed to construct the project at the density that they're allowed concessions do not have their requirement

Basically, they just need to be financially viable or useful. They have to provide some benefit to the project. So the standard for, so it's arguably slightly easier to deny a waiver than a concession with a showing that they could, in theory, shrink the footprint of the building or something like that.

But that's not true for concessions. And keeping the density. Yes.

Yeah, as long as we were giving them the density.

Exactly.

And then one more question on the parking. If they came in with a, you know, 75 units, you know, theoretically equals one space each, that's 75 parking spaces, but they're not providing that. But if they asked for zero parking, could that be, is that something that they could have asked for?

They could, under either a waiver or concession. It's up to the applicant to determine what they want to do as the amount of parking and what they're seeking, whether that's a waiver, concession, warrant exception, or waiver. We would proceed it forward the same way. We might have certain reservations about their parking count depending on what the total is, whether that's zero or however less than what's required.

So they could have come in with less than $57,000 even?

They could have. They could have come with $47,000, $30,000, $20,000, whatever.

OK, thank you.

I believe staff wanted to make a clarification. I had a, nope.

OK. Commissioner Abney? I may have lost my thought process, but I think going back there was another question about the project across the street and the setback for that project. Thompson Village, and it's roughly five feet from the front of the property line as well.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Ivey.

At this point, I'll just ask one question. Let's see. Where did I put it? I'll ask it later. Thank you.

Any other questions of the Commission at this time?

Sorry about that. Okay. The Assistant City Attorney made a point. So with this project, density bonus law, concessions and waivers are a huge deal. And it's law, state law, that we have to deal with. and I think it's important to understand the way he phrased it. So you said that waivers are required to construct the building at the density allowed. Okay, so let's start with the allowed density before applying the density bonus. What is the allowed density? Now I know this is form-based code and there are certain parts of town where there's specific densities attached to specific lots or projects. What is the, how do things lie here?

So for this project in the Midtown corridor, because there isn't a set density and under the old general plan, commerce did not also have a maximum density. The applicant provided us a density bonus calculation excuse me a base density calculation to show that the project could fit 50 dwelling units meeting the development standards and so they've requested the density above that to be 75 which is a 50 increase above the 50 units okay so just just to be just to be clear uh what i meant was the density allowed with the density bonus applied

Okay, that's good clarification. So this parcel, it's what, 0.67, something like that, acres? Correct. Okay, so it was 50 units, allowed 50 units on 0.67 acres, so that's 50 times 3 halves. Oh, so that's how you get to the 75. Okay. Two-thirds, when you divide it by two-thirds, you get three-halves. That takes you from 50 to 75. So under the, so 75 is what's allowed.

By using the number of affordable housing units they've proposed, they would be entitled to up to 75 units.

Oh, okay, so it's 50 per acre, which makes it 75. Okay, what would it be without the DBL?

Without density bonus, they would effectively have the density allowed under the development standards, which would be 50 units on this project site, which is not 50 per acre. It's 50 on a slightly half acre lot. It's .62 acres. So that density is a little bit higher than 50 per acre. But any project could come in and make an argument to meet the development standards. If they were to build, say, smaller units, they might have more units on the property. If they came in with larger three-bedroom units, they would likely have smaller units. And so they've made the description of the project mix as proposed, and that's where we use the density bonus to get them up higher than that. If they didn't use density bonus and just met our affordable housing requirement, they wouldn't necessarily get to 75, but they would still qualify for a density bonus under density bonus law.

OK, so my last follow up on that. So what we have is state law is saying that you can have 75 units here. And the phrase, the waivers say that you can ask for any waiver that will get you to 75 units. essentially, as long as you don't violate health, safety, and so forth.

Correct. Density bonus law provides quite a few different flexible scenarios for developers, that being getting to a higher density level, but we've seen lots of projects that don't get to that higher density level and only use concessions and waivers. I would argue that the concessions and waivers are often more valuable than the additional density.

Okay, just one last follow-up, sorry, and then I will be done, Chair. 50% bonus, how unusual is that in our city? I understand that's legal, that's the state mandate, but how often is that applied?

It's not been used as often as you might expect. Like I said, they typically are using concessions and waivers. Those are the tools they're using. They're not often using the slightly higher density. This project is one of the first. A few of the other ones have a slightly higher density, but using the 50% is a unique feature on this project.

OK, thank you.

Commissioner, like request.

Thanks. I just want to follow up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a nuance of the law is it's not a requirement that the developer go to 75 units. That is their request. They they are allowed to request to go to 75 units. The law doesn't require them to use a density bonus to go to 75. Is that correct? They could come in with a project with 66 units or 55 units.

Correct. They're not required to build that number of units. And still get their concessions and waivers. Correct.

Commissioner Comden.

Thank you, Chair. How many units are on the top floor?

the top floor has four units and a clubhouse four rental units yes okay thank you all right any other questions from the commission all right seeing as there are no more questions at the commission from this at this time i'm going to invite the applicant to provide a presentation if they have one this evening

Good evening, PC members, staff, members of the public. I'm Paul Sheehan with Dyer Sheehan Group here in Ventura. And I'm pleased to be here this evening, along with the property owners, our project architect, Ron Nestor, our landscape architect, Brian Broderson. Next slide, please. The owners acquired this underutilized and visually blighted site in 2023 for the sole purpose of redevelopment and had been diligently working with city staff for two and a half years to create a financially feasible project design that aligns with city vision and priorities and makes appropriate use of the state mandated density bonus opportunities. The primary goal of the Thompson Corridor Apartments is to provide sorely needed, high-quality workforce and affordable rental housing with a variety of unit types along the Thompson Corridor in Midtown. Next slide, please. The owners and the design team have participated in dozens of meetings with planning staff, a pre-op process, a formal planning application with determination of completeness, two DRC hearings, and detailed preparations for a director's hearing that at the last minute was rescheduled for planning commission. Prior to this hearing, a few final revisions were incorporated into the design per discussions with city staff and state law to create the opportunity to make all eight affordable units designated as very low. The Thompson Core Apartments is a classic infill development. It'll visually enhance this prominent and highly underutilized site and help ease the longstanding shortage of workforce and affordable housing in Ventura. I do want to thank city staff for its ongoing cooperation, professionalism, and very constructive input throughout this process. And with that, I will turn this over to our architect, Ron Nestor.

Thank you, Paul. Next slide. Next slide, please. So the Thompson Corps Departments is located along the Thompson Boulevard Segment A portion of the Midtown Corridor Specific Plan. It has 75 total units that include eight very low-income units that provide a wide variety of unit types, for diversity of very low-income workforce and family tenants. And you can see the mix there that ranges from 405 square feet to 1,594 square feet. On-site amenities include the main courtyard, the north terrace, a rooftop ocean view terrace, a gym, a ground floor lobby cafe, a business center, and a club room. Next slide. So the first level above the street level, you can see the units that front onto Thompson have stoop frontages where there's a front door facing Thompson and an additional front door facing the courtyard. To the right of that is the main entry called a ziguan. At the ground floor is a indoor lobby and cafes kind of space. The grand stairway up to the courtyard and adjacent to that is the elevator that serves all floors of the building. All floors of the building will be disabled accessible units. Adjacent to the elevator is the trash room so it's convenient for the users to go to the trash room and then there's a back door so the trash can be facilitated out through the driveway. The yellow units indicate the diverse and diversely located very low affordable units. On this ground floor at the courtyard is a gym that opens up into the courtyard and a passage to the north terrace. Next slide, please. Second floor, units ring the courtyard. And again, the yellow indicates the diverse locations of the very low income units. Next slide. And third floor is similar. And fourth floor is a partial fourth floor, and the footprint is approximately 37.5% of the typical floor. It includes four larger apartments, and it includes the ocean view roof deck with the adjacent club room. Next slide, please. The basement has been discussed as a semi-subterranean basement. The site has a gentle slope to it, so it's burrowed into the site. It includes 57 parking spaces and facilitates disabled parking, electric vehicles, and there's also one motorcycle space. The orange area is the back of house, which includes mechanical and electrical spaces, bike storage, tenant storage, and facilities to store surfboards. and then access to the elevator. Next slide. The exterior of the building is a contemporary Spanish-influenced building. The strongly oriented horizontal three-story mass is offset by the fourth floor, which is far more setback and articulated. There are three Spanish bay lanterns at the top of the building, detailed with wood corbeling and wood detailing. The exterior is also animated by wrought iron balconies and other balconies that are a mix of wrought iron and solid balconies to create animation and variety in the elevation. Next slide. The top view is the front elevation, as we've discussed. The bottom one is the rear elevation, which is a three-story portion of the building. At the bottom, there's this long, horizontal, white rectangle. That's the existing property line concrete block wall, so we're proposing an additional wall which will create more privacy between the north terrace and the residential to the north and then covering that in vines. Next slide, please. So these are the side elevations, and you can see at the top there that the building is masked toward Thompson, and so it diminishes in height as it moves to the north. The material palette includes those two tiles at the top, which will be alternating green and copper color, so that this will animate the stoop stairways and the main stairway up to the courtyard. The exterior lighting will be night sky compliant lighting. And you can see the other colors, earth tones. Next slide, please. And then here you can see the French doors are a Santa Barbara blue. The top floor is this copper-colored brown. And you can see the far more articulated undulations to the top floor. And this shows you more clearly the stoop entrances to the lower floor units. Next slide. The bottom section shows, first of all, there's the gentle slope that you can kind of see through the parking garage. So the podium is set three feet above the high point of the site, and that's the courtyard level. The subterranean parking is shown here, and then you can see the steps up to the level one unit from the Thompson sidewalk. The other section is cut east and west, and it shows the fitness that opens up into the courtyard and the club room on the fourth level. Next slide. So this is an artist's rendition of what the courtyard could be and the type of amenities proposed, which include barbecues, fire pits, fountains, outdoor seating, and lush landscaping. Next slide. And in the evening could be a wonderful place for people to gather. Next slide. The ground floor gym fitness room opens out to the courtyard space. Next slide. Brian Burison is here, landscape architect. He's done a wonderful job of selecting plants and textures that will complement the design. Next slide. The existing street tree will remain, and new additional street trees will be planted in the parkway. There's courtyard landscaping, as already described. At the north terrace, there's both active and passive uses. And the detail on the left side here shows the existing cement block wall that's the property line wall and the new wall. Next slide. Roof terrace is shown here with the club room opening to the roof terrace. Next slide. So some of the benefits of the Thompson Apartments, it'll help address the city's ongoing need for affordable and workforce rental housing, offering varied mix of apartment units to serve a variety of household types, including one, two, three bedroom and studio units, including eight affordable units, for a very low income for 55 years. It's located along Thompson Boulevard corridor, allowing for convenient pedestrian access to nearby downtown, public beach and pier areas, and existing public transportation lines. It's a major redevelopment and beautification of an underutilized and visually blighted parcel along the Thompson Boulevard corridor and will generate approximately 35 million to 40 million investment in the Midtown community. It'll also encourage future development along the corridor and will provide privately funded implementation of the state bonus law. significant employment opportunities during development and construction, long-term positive impact on nearby property values, economic benefit of additional local customers for Midtown businesses, and should help constrain future rental increases in the Midtown community. Next slide. Thank you very much. We're here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Questions for the applicant? Commissioner Condon.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. The height of the rear wall currently at the back of the property is six feet?

Approximately six feet. And then we're building an additional six feet on top of the podium. So in that interstitial space between the existing wall and the new wall, there could be a planter and we can grow vines to soften the new wall.

So it'll be a redundant six foot and then you're hoping vines can go further up from there.

That's right. I can also clarify the discussion about the courtyard. So the courtyard is 40 feet wide from unit to unit. There are walkways that encroach then into that. And then the other dimension is not 30 feet it's 104 feet.

Um, can you explain the semi subterranean nature of the parking as opposed to full subterranean?

So if you go to the section, the lower section, uh, if you see over it says Thompson Boulevard, that's the grade of Thompson Boulevard. And as you move across the site, you can see it gently slopes up. So at the rear of the site, rear of the site and the right side, the podium level is set three feet above the high point of the grade, which is what your code calls for. So that sets the podium level. So that creates the semi-subterranean condition. So at the back, it's nearly fully subterranean. At the front, it's about half.

I understand the slope is what the... Now, I saw you mentioned in the text there the 55-year term for the very low-income dedication units. I'm not familiar with that on rentals. I know for sale units there is such a restriction. Maybe this is more appropriate for staff, but you're here now. I've never seen it for rental units that those actually expire at a certain point.

Well, I think it is better for staff, but I can tell you that I work on an awful lot of affordable housing projects for affordable housing developers. And the state law does have a 55 year requirement for their control of that.

Thank you.

Commission law request.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Were there any alternative designs for this lot that could have met the standards? Did you do any alternative designs to the building instead of this one?

No, but I can explain that going through the form-based code, we looked at all of the options available, and that's how we derived this from your code. And also, at the very outset, the first planner that we worked with recommended that we do a Spanish-style building rather than a contemporary-style building.

Yeah, I definitely appreciate that. But I'm speaking more in terms of massing. I mean, this commission has certainly been pretty clear on massing, and I'm just wondering, you know, how that was determined to be the best route. Was it only so that it could be, you could meet the 70 to 75 units? That's right. One second. So how will the parking spaces be divvied up?

Well, I believe they would be proposed to not be engaged with the unit. They would be rented separately from the units.

I believe the trash is on the front of the building. Is that correct? How is that being proposed to be screened?

It's within a trash room, so you won't see it at all.

Okay, so the trash truck, does it have to enter the?

No, the trash will have to be pulled out to the curb for the trash to be operated.

Okay. Was a shading analysis ever completed, and do you have any renderings of that?

We do, and we have that in the addendum at the end of my presentation.

I will just add from a staff perspective, we do have supplemental sides that show the shading study that was provided by the applicant. Here.

So you can see that these are, the top is the winter solstice, the top left is the winter solstice, the right is the summer solstice, and the two bottom ones are the spring and autumn equinox. This is all at 1 p.m. showing the extent of the shadows, but I know there was a comment that at 1 o'clock on December 21st, you know, there would be a lot of shadow here in Ventura on December 21st is probably overcast too.

Not necessarily.

Quite often.

I don't think we can make those kinds of conjectures on the weather. But doing a shading study only at one o'clock, I mean, that's the high time, right? The sun's gonna be the highest, that's gonna be the least amount of shading. So were there any other analyses on different times of the day?

No, this is what we were asked to do.

Okay. There were a lot of questions about geotech, so I have a couple questions about that. So the water table here, and maybe you're not the right person, and that's totally fine.

Yes, there's no geotechnical report yet, but as the project would progress, it would naturally have a geotechnical expert in going to that.

Okay, so who will be responsible for that oversight?

A geotechnical engineer has not been selected yet.

Okay. In California?

Yeah. That's quite normal.

Let's see. What other, are there other similar projects that this development team has successfully completed in California?

Actually, I don't know the answer to that. I know from my point of view, I was the architect of Coastline Ventura. Our office did the Sanjon Village and the, can't remember the name of the one that's right across the street from this. So we've done a number of projects here.

But not this particular team?

Not this client team.

So, at the end of your presentation, you made a statement that it would improve nearby property values. I'm just wondering if, was there an analysis on that, or how was that determined?

I'm going to defer to Paul.

um our belief is is over time after we get through construction and this bill is occupied and most likely will encourage other people to redo different properties in the area that will have a general effect of raising the property value around there but no particular analysis was done or anything that's just a you're

predicting or making a statement. Is that true?

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. There was no analysis done to make that determination. Is that correct?

Yeah. I mean, it's just a professional opinion having been involved here for four decades. OK.

Thank you. That's all I have for right now. Thank you. Commissioner Abbey.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. Good evening. Thank you for coming tonight. I wanted to ask about the rear setback at the north end of the building. So there's a waiver. I believe it's a waiver. There was some wording that at the third floor level.

Mr. Abbey, I apologize. Do you mind speaking to your microphone a little closer?

Sorry. Thank you. At the third floor level, the code says that there needs to be a 30 foot step back, set back, step back, so 30 from the fence. Okay, thank you, thank you. And you're requesting 20 feet. Let's see. Okay. I wanted to ask You've obviously put a lot of thought into this building. And as far as how it looks, I'll make those comments later, much later. But given what you're proposing, let me ask the question this way. To what extent or what steps have you included or taken to be neighborhood compatible, to be a good neighbor to especially the residents who are directly to the side and directly north of the property. And you might want to include your landscape architect as well. So what steps have you taken, including planting, screening, night sky compliant? What steps have you taken to be a good neighbor?

Let me introduce Brian Broderson.

Thank you, Brian Broderson. Can you pull up the landscape plan? toward the end it's a it's a very interesting project because there's a sizable setback at 20 feet even i mean with no building or anything in that area for this type of urban infill type of project and doing what we can to respect the neighbors. It was mentioned before, there's already a wall of varying heights, I guess, to grade at the rear properties. And then in between the two walls, the goal is to have that six foot wall that faces, it won't be the whole wall that will be visible from the neighboring properties, but it will be completely green is the goal. And not to be, too big not to build a 10 foot wall or anything that's gonna make it even worse. On the project side, on the right hand side, the idea is to just have a very passive area and have a variety of trees and tree heights, they will be over the parking, the subterranean parking. So it is on a podium. So we are limited to some degree, but you can grow a fairly sizable tree in a four by four or a five by five planter. And that's what's intended there. And then on the left-hand side, we wanted to take advantage of some of that open space that's provided, which you have a 20-foot wide space and a lot of length. And so the space is divided in half. The reason why that space on the left is the way it is is because there's an existing very dense amount of vegetation between the properties in that location. That vegetation could go away. And so after the DRC meeting, we did add, it's hard to see in this slide, but there are a line of container plants that run all the way along the north side of that little bit of green there, and then a tree at the corner.

OK, that's helpful. The building height, how tall is the building at the north end of the building? So at the north end, there's three stories. You have four stories towards the front of the building. What would be the height of the three stories?

I don't remember. I have to look it up.

I'm just trying to figure out if I was a property that was directly north of that, what would I be looking at?

About 36 feet 5 inches. 36 feet, 5 inches.

OK. Thank you. And then the solar, I noticed, if you go to the slide that has the solar, I think I was looking at the solar being located towards the south end of the building. Is that correct?

It's on. both of the long legs of the building, so there's on the roof of the third floor at the rear is a band of solar, that, and then the next level up, which is not in this slide collection, it was in Tyler's slide collection, on top of those four front units, there's more solar.

OK, so the solar field, how high does that go beyond the 36 feet height?

It would be less than the 36.

The 36 would be the parapet height. Oh, the edge. And the top is actually below the parapet. OK. All right, thank you for your answers. I appreciate that.

All right, I had staff comments.

Yeah, going back to the 55-year timeline, that's in our code in section 2444570, about the 55-year timeline. We don't have any development standards for shading. We do have a request in our application for the applicant to provide a shading study, but there's no actual requirement we have in our code about shadow casted on adjacent properties. I'm not sure if there was any other questions for staff, but that's what I had in my notes.

Can I ask about night sky compliance? You can. Is the building night sky compliant?

Sorry, say that again?

Is the project, the building night sky compliant? Yes. Okay. It fits the definition of night sky compliance? Yes. Thank you very much. That'll be helpful so the light's not spreading out to the neighbors. Thank you.

Commissioner Largquist?

Thank you, Chair. I think the following questions are gonna be somewhat rhetorical, but I want to ask anyway. I'm gonna ask, basically what I'd like to ask is how do waivers one, four, five, eight, and nine, and we can go through them separately if you're prepared to do that, but how do they physically preclude the project at the allowed density? What requirement are these waivers that you have to have in order to meet, or in order to reach the density?

Can you show the slide of one, two, three, or whatever you just said?

Do we have a slide with all the waivers? That's probably the easiest.

Yeah, it's like 34, yeah.

We'll open up the staff presentation with it.

So what physical requirement of this project is requiring you to have a 10-foot front yard setback?

So there's one very important thing to clarify, that in the, as I said in my first slide, I don't know if you can just go back to the first slide of mine. So that's actually slide four. We're in the Thompson Boulevard Segment A portion of the specific plan. And in this, it gives specific dimensions of the street lanes, the parking lane. On the side there, it's sideways. So that's right out of your code. So it gives the specific dimensions of the center of the street, the street lanes, this and that and that, and then a six-foot parkway and a six-foot sidewalk, and from the sidewalk, a 10-foot setback. The anomaly here is there's this extra eight feet of right of way that's greater than what the specific plan calls for. So in our proposal, we're building to the specific plan requirements, 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. So there's this eight foot anomaly, and then we're approximately two feet beyond that. So we're 10 feet from the sidewalk.

Okay, that answers my question for waiver one. Can we go over waiver four?

Okay, you have to go back to the other slide, sorry.

Can I just add, and this may be redundant, but typically in the T4.5 zone, the front yard setback is zero. The only reason the 10 foot becomes technically applicable in this case is because we are using the stoop frontage type. And normally with the stoop frontage type, you have a stair landing and a few steps that go down from the front of the building to the edge of the sidewalk or close to the edge of the sidewalk. And this is why the stoop frontage requires that extra 10 feet. In our particular case, we have recessed the landing into the building just for architectural stylistic purposes. And as Ron said, we have an extra eight feet of unused street right away, which we've been led to believe by public work. We can make arrangements to landscape that and for minimal encroachment. And so we don't even get close to the sidewalk. So that 10 foot setback becomes irrelevant in this particular application of the stoop frontage.

And there are other buildings along the stretch of Thompson that are set back approximately 10 feet from sidewalks. So it would be consistent with other buildings.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you for waiver one. I would like to ask the same questions also for waiver four.

I think this is the same thing. It has to do with this additional eight feet of unused right of way. So we're actually encroaching only, I forgot, like 16 inches or something like that.

Okay. And waiver five.

So the reason is that the consolidation of three lots equals about 200 feet. So we have filled. That's what we got. Yeah, this existing condition.

OK. And then eight and nine, those are my other two questions.

And actually, that proposal is a little bit wrong. It says a three-story building with 100% height ratio for all floors. The topmost floor is at about 37.5% of the typical floor.

True, but the requirement is 50% in three stories, and you're asking for 100. I think that's the point of the table.

And again, it's to equal 75 units.

But again, that's based on that not a different building footprint was not considered. Correct. It was just based on this building. Correct. Okay. And then number nine. So yeah, I asked this question a little earlier, but there are three staircases in this building, not just one.

There are three staircases. And we have common uses on different floors. And so you cannot deny disabled people from accessing the common spaces. So we must provide elevator access. So we've provided that on all floors. And again, all units will be accessible units and adaptable for disabled people.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Commissioner Comden.

Thank you, Chair. I want to go back to the trash because what I think I'm hearing is there's an enclosure you're going to push out, roll out bins for a forked trash pickup on Thompson.

Correct.

I'm not sure how that works, can you maybe explain by if you have an overhead view of the street level, could you explain to us how that might work.

Well. it's probably best to go to my first floor plan that's larger scale. No, down, down, down. More, more, one more, one more.

And we have run it by public works.

OK. So located at the main entrance there is the stairway up to the courtyard, an elevator so all the tenants can access. And then they open a door into the trash room and deposit their trash. On trash day, the I don't know if it'll be the trash company or the onsite manager will roll the trash bins out and there'll probably be a dedicated time, no parking in this area, so the trash truck can facilitate the trash.

Okay, so the trash truck, while it's doing its work, may block the driveway to be able to creep off of the main thoroughfare streets?

Well, that hasn't been worked out, but it could be in front of the main walkway, not the main driveway. It depends how we set it up. It hasn't been set up yet.

Okay.

But it has been reviewed by your trash people. There's a trash calculation, so we've done that trash calculation and it's been reviewed and what we have is adequate.

Okay. That explanation is helpful. That's it for now. Thanks.

Any further questions for the applicant at this time? Okay.

seeing as there are none we will move on to the public hearing and open up for public comment clerk how many public speakers do we have this evening thank you thank you chair we have 28 speakers for this item so as for the protocols we move to two minutes and then we'll start with the speakers who are in the room and then we'll move to speakers who are on zoom thank you I'm sorry, I can't do that. I apologize, I can't. Our first speaker is Marina Luna, filed by Alicia Kinsley.

Hello. I'm a case manager at the City Center Transitional Living Program in Ventura, and I have the privilege of walking alongside families as they work to rebuild their lives and move towards stability. At the City Center, we see every day how great the need for affordable housing truly is. Many of the people we serve are working hard, employed and doing everything they can to move forward, but affordable housing options are very limited. Stable housing changes lives. It gives people the opportunity to focus on healing, growth, work, education, and building a better future instead of just trying to survive. we support efforts that create more safe and affordable housing opportunities for families in our community i've brought a few of our residents our graduates that's part of our program for them to find affordable housing and they'd like to share a little bit hello i left an abusive relationship three years ago one of my biggest fears when making the decision to leave was how am i going to do this as a single mother of two small children in ventura county

My name is Alicia Knisely, and I was blessed to be welcomed by the City Center Transitional Living when I was hopeless. I was beat down when I came to this safe haven, broken, unable to trust anyone, and all out of options. I began to rebuild my life starting over from the very bottom. I healed, got full-time work, paid off all my debt and built a savings, and graduated the program July of last year. Now my task is to find safe housing for me and my kids. Most apartments here ask for two and a half or three times the rent. I would need to make at least $7,500 a month to even qualify for a small studio here. Even with my three jobs, I don't make enough on my own. I've been on every housing list there is for years now. Many tell me the wait list is seven to 13 years. I am only allowed another year at this program. All I can do is hope that we will be able to stay in Ventura at a place that we can afford, because who wouldn't want to raise their kids in a beautiful city like Ventura? Thompson Corps is exactly what we need in our city for hardworking families trying to survive the rising cost of living. Thank you for listening. My name is Alicia Knisley.

Hello, my name is Leonette Avila, and today I want to share a piece of my journey and how my life has been transformed. For years, I was trapped in addiction and felt completely hopeless. Everything changed when I gave birth to my son. In that moment, I knew I wanted a different life for both of us. I entered and completed a rehab program, and after that, I moved into the Tender Life Maternity Home, where I was able to continue healing and working on myself while gaining custody of my son. Today I'm a graduate of the City Center Transitional Living Program and I have been clean and sober for over three and a half years. I work full-time while attending college part-time. I now have a savings account and I no longer depend on government assistance. I work very hard to provide a stable life for my family. As a resident of the city center program, affordable housing is deeply important to me and families like mine. Having access to a stable housing would give my son and I the opportunity to finally have a permanent home and continue building a healthy future together. Housing is more than just a place to live. It provides dignity, stability, confidence and the foundation people need to rebuild their lives. Affordable housing gives people like me the chance to keep moving forward, continue growing and striving for a better life. Thank you for allowing me to share.

Hi, my name is Olna. I am a graduate at the city center. The city center has truly changed my life and my daughter's life in such a meaningful way. It has given us stability, support, hope, and peace. It has also allowed me to rebuild my life and the ability to move forward instead of constantly worrying about survival i receive support and through that i have a job car a driver's license and an opportunity to continue education to build a better future for me for myself and for my daughter when families have stable housing it affects every part of their lives it creates a foundation for healing emotional stability education work and personal growth And giving people the opportunity to rebuild their lives in a healthy and meaningful way, as much as it has done for me here at the city center, working towards stable and affordable housing is meaningful and life-changing because it matters. I'm deeply thankful for the programs and supportive housing that truly give families hope and the chance to grow. Thank you for allowing me to share.

Our next speaker is Kelly Dorsey, followed by Rob Thameyer.

Thank you.

good evening city commissioners um i really appreciate your time this evening and i do have to say uh i'm against this project i'll start that from the outside from the outset but i do want to show my appreciation for shauna and tyler working with our community listening to our concerns and taking it this far they've been wonderful in doing that um but I want to say, from the beginning, this project has been fraught with bad faith. That notice that was never sent to us, we actually lost six or seven months because that original notice was never sent, that we could have been working with the developer, had seen these plans, had had conversations with the commissioner. So yes, they're working extra hard to notify us now, but we lost six months with no notification. And this really is affecting us. You'll see from our neighborhood tonight, you'll see everybody here that you'll hear different perspectives on this. Beyond this seven months we lost, after two design review committees, you heard that they rejected this. They said this was one of two projects in six years that they've rejected, and it was because of the size and massing. um and then we talk about the ab2097 with the parking shortage i was actually the one that pointed that out to the commission and to our attorneys that what the 2097 actually meant and that it didn't mean it so from the beginning our planning commission our planning team didn't understand what it meant and our lawyers didn't know what it meant so it really Upsets me that we're not being protected and that we have to protect ourselves When we come to these kind of meetings in these kind of buildings that are affecting our community After they were rejected on the 2097 and they were rejected by the design committee They came back again, and that's when they went up to four stories So unfortunately my time is out, but I wanted to show some slides you guys asked about parking along Thompson Thank You.

Miss Dorsey. That's your time

They're in here. They're in my slides about what parking looks like in that neighborhood.

Our next speaker is Rob, followed by Kathy Peterson.

Please, I ask people, we can use our silent hands, please. Thank you.

Evening. I was gonna talk about this. I was at the design review committee when the project was rejected. They rejected it for density and the fact that it really didn't fit into the neighborhood. The neighborhood directly north of the project is essentially one story Spanish style houses built in the 20s. So this giant building is gonna face us. And then we'll get to the parking. I noticed everybody focused on that also. I figure there's going to be 50 people that won't have a parking space in this building. So there'll be parking in our neighborhood. Our street probably could support maybe 20 spaces. And then the street down from San Nicolas could support maybe 20 spaces. So now we're going to have people that are walking a quarter mile, half a mile to go get their car. do you think this is going to be a good thing for the residents there they're going to have to go chasing their cars around and the neighborhood won't enjoy it either because we'll lose all our street parking the houses have narrow parking spaces only one car fits in a parking space you know in the driveways so that's where we're coming from with this We're hoping that the design committee would, well the design committee did reject it, we're hoping that the Planning Commission would reject this and hopefully the developer would come back with something that fits in the neighborhood a little bit better. Thanks for your time.

Next speaker is Kathy Peterson followed by Dan Detmer.

of the scale of our one-story neighborhood with a four-, five-, and three-story building. And it goes, it actually, the ones along the side are just, they're the part that's empty on my map is where that building goes. And my house is directly to the west. I experienced a development that happened in 2007 and 8 where they dug four feet down and I lost 100 foot of my wall that fell into the trench. I've visibly seen the water table at 10 feet. And I gave you a packet, or I gave Shanna a packet, to look at the pictures of the damage. Unfortunately, digital cameras were not as important, you know, resolution-wise. But it's really hard. I've spent 36 years paying off and taking care of my home, and I have two minutes to convince you that it has value. It has value to me. I own it. I've worked for it. And I'm going to have a 50-foot, 6-inch wall 130 feet of my property, which leaves me in the dark for half the day. And for my health and safety, if it counts to anyone, it's going to make me very unhappy. And I have a heart condition, and I'll have no son. So I'm all for affordable housing, but they used eight units as opposed to 75 to slide under the waiver light. And that feels like cheating. So I'd like you to look at my damage that I've already experienced. They were an LLC, and the reason why it's never been finished is because an LLC is a corporate veil, and they are not responsible. And here I am 20 years later with still the damage going on, unremediated. I need protection from the city. I need you to work for me. I've been here since 75 and my family before that. We need you. We need you to support us. Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Dan Detmer followed by Elle Zavala.

Good evening, commissioners, city staff, Dan Detmer, city resident. I'm here to oppose this project as proposed based on largely the scale and massing and the parking issues. I think it's a rather callous and bloated proposal that disregards our city's planning restrictions and it proposes outsized projects that would degrade the character and quality of Midtown neighborhoods. As you know, the city has a long history of planning. We had leaders like Rick Cole and Bill Fulton lead the city through densification processes, smart infill processes, the solar initiatives, more recently the historical Neighborhoods work, that was all good work, and the city has extensive and sound planning policies and documents to guide and constrain development. And what we're seeing here is one exemption throws all that away, or throws most of that away, and I find that discouraging. So I think the parking's just a non-starter to propose one out of four apartments won't have a single parking space? Who's going to sign up for that? And what are the businesses nearby going to do? Who's going to get a haircut where you have to park four blocks away because you can't park in front of that guy's little business there? The building height, 20 feet higher than would be allowed under our local planning, I don't think that works. the running out of time here, but I just think the, it's been a cynical application of the density bonus application. And for the developer to say, I added one low housing, low cost unit, and I had to add four rooftop luxury units to make it all work.

That's ridiculous. Like who believes that?

our next speaker is el zavala followed by john sanders jones hello everybody my name is senorina zavala and we live in 1721 is thompson so i'm very we very my husband and i in our family very familiar with the traffic problem uh they talking about um two hours three hours parking is not uh they mentioned that about the trash garbage is going to be a big problem because we see it now the trash people park and they have all the traffic had to have to stop for them if they're gonna carry one or two big cans it's not gonna be short we have to be out to take kids to school we have three kids We are hardworking people. We wish that we can afford to move out of this PC area, but we can. We have a very old 1924 historical house that we love. and we take care of it, we make it, it's very good looking. And unfortunately, these people that bring this project, I don't even think they live close to this area. I don't even think they're from California, first of all, because we've been here since 1979. We've been living in this house for 23 years. And to just have these people coming to us is totally a business. It's not for low income. It's only eight units for low income. This is just a phase to make the city believe that they trying to bring good things to our area, to our beautiful historical area that we work very hard for it. And then these people come from out of town, from out of city, from out of country to do this. And not even respect our neighbors. You were asking about what are you doing for your neighbors. That they didn't let us know soon enough, that was not respecting us. We wish that we would have the time so we can come to you and for you to listen to. I'm sorry for the time I run out, but everybody else has a lot of things negative to say. And this project definitely is the city helping us. It would not go.

Next speaker is John Sanders-Jones, followed by Afzal Ahmed.

It was to be written, but I'll go with the spoken. When it comes to affordable housing, I'm blessed that I was able to purchase a house in 1993 because I certainly wouldn't be able to do so today. So I support moving ahead with this staff's recommendation for the inclusion of the eight very low income affordable units. Thank you.

Next speaker is Afzal Ahmed, followed by Syed Hussain.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk. I was looking around some rental place, so I was told some project is coming along and I would request that maybe it will, I'm looking for two bedroom. So if you guys allow, maybe it will be good opportunity for the new peoples. I live currently in Porter Ranch. I'm looking for some more space for some vacation or free time with my wife and kids sometime come this area. So if you guys please recommend and allow, we will appreciate. So that's our request. There is nothing else. But I hear all this argument, and we highly request if you can please let it happen. There are issues, but everything can be worked out, I think. That's all. Appreciate, sir.

Our next speaker is Syed Hussain, followed by Imran.

Hi.

My name is Saeed Hussain. Actually, I have been looking to move in this area for quite some time, but unfortunately couldn't find any reasonable accommodation which will fit my budget. So when I looked at this project, it really encouraging that the city is trying to develop an accommodation for people who are financially not very well off. And I appreciate that if this project goes through, it will relieve a lot of those limitations. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Imran, followed by Elizabeth Poltas.

Good evening, everybody. Good to see you guys, and especially I heard, it's beautiful talking. And like, it's been talked about a lot, this building, and I looked at two, and I'm a father of four kids. And one of my son is a special ed. So if I get opportunity of buying this kind of property, can I get a home where I can live, and nice, and especially the beautiful weather right here, the ocean right in the corner. I don't want to miss it. If I'll be given this opportunity, I'll really appreciate that. You guys have a great evening.

Our next speaker is Elizabeth, followed by Marcelina Cardona.

Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Polfus. I live right on the corner of McMillan and Santa Ynez. And something that no one is talking about are the kids that are coming out of Cabrillo. I can't get in and out of my driveway between 830 and 930 or 230 to 330. The cars back up from Thompson. and mcmillan all the way up to main street and the kids run in and out of those cars there's no stop sign between santa ynez and mcmillan so it's a straight thoroughfare and if there are cars parked on both sides you can only get one car through that light is a nightmare this project is way out of proportion for our neighborhood my house is not spanish style It is a craftsman style. So the fact that the architecture is based on the Spanish is kind of ridiculous because there are a lot of craftsmen. My house is 100 years old. It's a single story. The view of this from my backyard is insane. I can't even get more than a six foot protection on the view and the shading of my garden in the backyard. So my property is being affected by this. I have children, I have grandchildren. Walking that street on Thompson is dangerous. More children, more families, they need to be protected and we're gonna have to fix the street, okay, if this project goes through. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marcelina Cardona followed by Judy Alexander.

Hi, my name is Marcy. I'm in the real estate industry, and I just got a really great job offer to work in the area. Well, I thought it was a really great job offer till I figured out how much it is to live here, and it really made me feel bad for people in hospitality, the service industry, retail, and I really feel like eight units is better than no units, and something has to happen. There has to be give when it comes to affordable housing, and if it starts with eight units, it starts with eight units. It's better than none, so I'm in support.

Our next speaker is Judy Alexander followed by Drake Duncan. Judy Alexander? I've just submitted a written comment. Okay. Our next speaker is Drake Duncan.

Hello, I am Drake Duncan. I own the barber shop right on the corner attached to Kathy's property. As this nice gentleman mentioned, a parking issue. Parking is already a problem at my shop. You throw 75 spaces, most people have two cars per residency. I have no idea where they're going to park, but I can guarantee you they're not going to come to my shop anymore because I don't know who would if they had to park two neighborhoods down just to walk over here. And I get that a lot of these people are for affordable income, but I hope you signed up already because there's eight units and I doubt you're gonna get lucky enough to get one of those units. If this guy actually cared about the neighborhood and cared about affordable housing, there would be a lot more than eight, and I would be all for it. And the gentleman over here also stated that it's gonna help business. If I thought that it was gonna draw business and be a good thing, I would be all for it. Obviously, I work right there. But again, nobody's gonna go to a shop that they can't park at, and parking is going to be insane if this goes through. Yeah, it's not okay. There's not near enough parking. They haven't done anything or brought anything up to mitigate that. They keep repeating the same thing over and over again. They're doing nothing to fix it. 57 parking spaces is not near enough. And again, 75 units, most people have two cars per residency. So I'd like you to take that into consideration. For the businesses, not just mine, but the other businesses and the great people in our neighborhood, because we have a great neighborhood, I feel bad for them, and I'm scared for my business, and I'm scared for theirs as well. And I hope we make it out of this, and I hope you guys make the right decision. Thank you.

Greg Seymour, did you want to speak on this item? Greg Seymour, followed by Braden Adams.

Hi, my name is Greg Seymour. I wanted to say I am in favor of this. My wife and I are planning to relocate in the area in the near future when she retires, hopefully soon. Family lives out here. I work on Outrigger, and we have family, friends working at CMH, which is nearby. I feel this apartment building will be a great place to live, convenient to good food, beach, and family. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Braden Adams, followed by Doug Kidwell.

Hi, my name is Braden Adams. I'm 19 years old. I was born and raised here in Ventura. And I just wanted to say that I support this project. Just we need all the housing we can get because I'd like to move out of my parents' house. And I can't afford to live anywhere. So the more housing we can get, the better it'd be, supply and demand, keep the housing prices down. And yeah, thank you.

Next speaker is Doug Kidwell, followed by Joshua Baker.

Hi. My name is Doug Kidwell. I live on Santa Barbara Street, just a couple blocks up from Thompson. And I couldn't agree more. I'm sure you're hearing over and over that there is already a parking problem in our neighborhood. The streets are narrow. Cabrillo Middle School, like one lady was saying, is It's insane when the school gets out already to add the proposed 75 units with four stories. It was talked about that that's going to enhance our neighborhood. I disagree 100%. Everything is one story. They're talking four stories. They're asking for changes in every building code that seems to exist. Mr. Comden, earlier you said it seems like a big ask. I agree with that 100%. The traffic that it would add to Thompson would already add more of a problem and it's already like the nice man who owns a barber shop. I would be very nervous if they built that because it would make parking even harder in our neighborhood. I feel that the size that's being proposed for stories, it is not compatible to our neighborhood. It would be more trash. It would be more traffic. It would be a whole lot more people to an already already very congested neighborhood with very narrow streets so i support affordable housing i'm not opposed to that but what's being proposed is a monstrosity i hope you make the choice to to make changes to the project so it won't be so big if it's allowed to continue thank you our next speaker is joshua baker followed by stephanie caldwell

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joshua Baker. I'm the owner and resident of 1680 Santee Inez Street, which is directly behind the proposed project. I live here with my wife and our two school-aged children, and I'm also a registered professional engineer in the state of California. I have serious concerns about this development project and how it will affect our neighborhood, and I strongly urge disapproval as designed. I voiced my concerns in writing and in person at the last two DRC meetings. The DRC recommended disapproval of this project, which they stated was the first time in six years. This was after repeated requests for the developer to redesign the project to address their concerns. The DRC recognized that this project as designed does not fit within the proposed site because of its mass, size, safety issues, and environmental concerns. Since the last DRC meeting, the developer has not addressed these concerns. In fact, they have exacerbated them by making the project bigger. It is clear that the developer is only concerned with profit and not how their project fits within the local neighborhood or with the safety of the surrounding neighbors. I reviewed the latest revised set of plans for this project and unfortunately none of our concerns were addressed. 12 significant waiver and concession requests to both sets of code and a significant effect on surrounding homes in the neighborhood. My highest priority concerns are the lack of proper geotechnical analysis and the heightened setback waivers. The lack of a geotechnical analysis is a huge safety concern. The parking encroachment on nearby structures presents possible soil stability, safety and structural issues. This should include excavation depths, shoring details, drainage and a foundation that will mitigate the high water table and unstable soil in the area. Note the recent construction site collapse on Front Street on May 29th, 2025, which is less than half a mile away. I brought this issue up in both DRC meetings and the developer hand waved my comment both times saying this is a normal part of construction as they did tonight. I spent my career in construction and understand how poor planning, lack of oversight or decisions made to save money can lead to disastrous consequences. I ask that you disapprove this project as currently designed. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Our next speaker is Stephanie Caldwell followed by Karen Flock.

Good evening, my name is Stephanie Caldwell and I speak on behalf of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce, our 700 members representing 24,000 employees and our 25 member board of directors. The Chamber has long identified the lack of available housing as the single largest impediment to economic prosperity in our community. We have a housing crisis. We hear from our members and businesses every day the challenges that they have in hiring and retaining employees due to the lack of available and affordable housing. Projects like this one provide options for our community, folding affordable units, in this case, eight very low income level units, which although people are poo-pooing the idea that eight units is important, eight very low income units is very important to our community. it folds these units that are greatly needed into a project additionally as it relates to the general plan this is what the plan calls for higher infill development higher density along the corridors I respectfully urge you to support staff recommendations and approve this project thank you our next speaker is Karen flock

Good evening. My name is Karen Flock. I'm a resident of Midtown and I support this project. We need more housing of various types and especially we need more affordable housing. This is an appropriate density at this location on a major street and one of the things I really like about Midtown is that we're an eclectic neighborhood and we need diverse types of housing. IN PARTICULAR HOUSING AT A HIGHER DENSITY MAKES EFFICIENT USE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. JUST NOT TO GET TOO INTO THE WEEDS BUT AT A RECENT MEETING I HEARD THE CITY MANAGER TALK ABOUT HOW VENTURA HAS A HIGH RATIO OF LANE MILES OF ROAD TO RESIDENTS AND THAT'S ONE REASON THE CITY IS LOOKING AT A SALES TAX INCREASE TO ADDRESS AMONG OTHER THINGS THE NEED FOR STREET MAINTENANCE. THANK YOU.

Diane Underhill, did you want to speak on this item? Then we'll move on to speakers who are online. Chris Frederick, you should be able to unmute yourself. Chris Frederick. Mark Morrison, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Hello.

Yeah, we can hear you.

Hello. Hi, this is Mark Morrison. I'm a resident at 1652 San Yanez Street. I'm speaking on behalf of my mom who owns the property. She's 89 years old, directly north of the project. Yeah, I really appreciate the neighbors that have come out. This obviously may open size for this area and I would just encourage the planning Commission to really look deeply at that. the health and safety and the physical environment changes that this is going to have and deny this development as designed within the framework that you have to work within. So I would ask the commission to go back to the drawing board. They still have another meeting. They can do better than this for the neighborhood. And I don't see a clock, so I'm just going to say thank you for your time. Really enjoyed hearing the commission's questions. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Doug McAllister, followed by Kim Vose. And Doug, you should be able to unmute yourself.

hello um thank you everybody uh i appreciate your time um my name is doug mcallister i am a resident uh of santa ynez street directly uh adjacent to the property um I oppose this. I think the masking is ridiculous. And it's been, we have done, I gave some packets out to show you, we built with an architect, a 3D model of what it would look like with the neighborhood. We did some shade studies in the morning and in the evening, which is much worse than just at the midpoint of the day. I think those are worth taking a look at, you know, people who have mental health concerns, you lose your sunlight there's there's health and safety issues there there are health and safety issues around the cabrillo school as you know the streets are full of cars suvs kids on e-bikes walking skateboards you know it's it's ridiculous and if you add that much more traffic and congestion around here that is a serious safety concern for the the children who attend the local schools um You know, I was at the DRC meetings and, you know, it kept coming up from the architect that, you know, whenever he would say that it's not feasible with the changes requested and he would not be, they would not be able to make money. That's not justification for this. This is a monstrosity and it's a serious health and safety concern to our neighborhood. I oppose this project. Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Kim Vose. Kim, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Yes, thank you. So as someone who grew up on Section 8 housing, I completely appreciate how important it is to have affordable housing. And listening to those women talk about their situation, I felt that because I've been there as a kid. But I also want to point out that the affordable housing, the very low-income housing that's offered in this project, there's one two-bedroom unit that's offered, so only one of those women would be able to have one of those apartments because Section 8 will not let you not have a separate bedroom for a child, so only one for those women. But also, I'd like to point out that density bonus law, as we've discussed, means the developer can ask for waivers if they are integral to the building type, right? If they can only build the units they have with those waivers. And that is not the case here. They do not have to have a central courtyard, which is taking up a ton of space that could be used for additional parking. They do not have to have a rooftop deck, a clubhouse, a gymnasium, a cafe, a business center, All of those things are making this building bigger than it needs to be and encroaching in our yards. If you look at the slides that we have sent in to see what this would look like from our neighborhood, you would be... The DRC was dumbstruck by what it would look like from our side, which is not what the developer is showing you. So I urge you to... Let's acknowledge the fact that we desperately need more affordable housing, but this as design should absolutely be rejected. Thank you.

And we'll go back to our final speaker, if they're available, Chris Frederick.

Yes, I'm available.

Okay, go ahead.

So I own a house on 1695 Sandy Nez Street, and I would just up front say that I'm opposed to this development for a variety of reasons that are clearly stated by many of the folks who've come before me, with the exception of the ringers. I would say that what worries me twofold is the number of children that come out of Cabrillo. Those kids, when I drive through the neighborhood, they are all over that neighborhood and adding that many parking spaces for people who cannot park where they live will increase the risk of somebody being run over. In addition to that, I drive Thompson Boulevard all the time as I head down to California Street. Whenever you have a large truck, like a trash truck on the street, that creates a tremendous hazard. The people in the morning, they're driving to work, they're checking their iPhones, they're having a coffee, they're smoking a cigarette. they will hit one of those trucks. It is absolutely unconscionable to me. I will say, in addition, 20 years ago, I went through all of the charrettes and participated in designing the homes and the designs for how we wanted Midtown to look. The notion that we would get rid of all of those on a statewide loophole suggests a tremendous lack of respect for the community, in my opinion. And I just think that that is such a lack of respect for the neighbors who live there. In addition, those homes are now up for a hundred year development where they're going to be historic neighborhood. To put this in a historic neighborhood, to me, that just seems criminal. So in addition, I would say with all due respect to the architect, that place is ugly. The place should not be built like that. There's so many other community developments anyway, Thank you very much for your time.

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

Thank you. Thank you to everyone who provided your comments this evening. At this time, we will now close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for deliberation.

Oh, yes.

I have been asked to do a quick break in between deliberation before we deliberate. We do five minutes. Five minutes. We'll do a quick five minutes. We'll resume. Yes. We'll resume at 8.07. Mr. Clerk, all right, thank you. We're going to get back to it. Before we open up for commissioner deliberation, I wanted to ask the applicant if they had an opportunity to make any rebuttals or comments to the public comments that were made this evening. Is there any desire from the applicant? I'm seeing none. Alright, we'll give the applicant five minutes. Thank you.

Just a couple of comments. Some I would call rebuttals. Number one, at the risk of being redundant, I just want to point out that the whole reason for the state density bonus law is to facilitate affordable housing, and particularly the construction of affordable housing in otherwise market rate projects. and the whole thing with the extra units and the concessions and the waivers are all structured to whether you want to call it coerce or facilitate but to make this happen and in our particular case because we qualified for 25 density bonus units, we had no choice but to go to the third story and the partial fourth story. Those two stories have 26 units on them. There was no place to put these extra 25 units in this project without raising the height of this building and the law told us and the city appeared to agree that we were entitled these units by the density bonus law in order to do this and preserve the courtyard. We had to ask for that extension of 10 feet on the third floor set back in the rear. And we purposely asked for a waiver to extend our parking garage, which only comes out of the ground three feet. into the rear setback because we picked up 17 parking spaces we believe that I mean we have more than half I don't remember the exact percentage but the bulk of our units are studios and one bedrooms we have eight affordable units we truly believe that a lot of the people who will live in this project will not necessarily own cars and there's a lot of other projections into the future about car ownership but we really believe that the parking we are proposing actually will be functional And we wouldn't want to do it any other way. Number two, and I'm surprised that whoever did this didn't bring it up, but we read through the public comments today. And there were two public comments that, to our great surprise, accused the alleged principals of the applicant of being criminals under federal indictment in New Jersey. That is not the case. There is a corporation, we looked this up, it took us five minutes to figure it out. There's a corporation in New Jersey with the same name as the applicant. Our applicant is an LLC registered in California. And they got all kinds of problems with construction and fraud. But we've been accused of being the scum, not me, but our clients appear to be being this criminal conspiracy. They know nothing of them. It has nothing to do with the applicant. I just had to point that out. And finally, if this commission hopefully chooses to approve this project, there is one error in the resolution that is not consistent with the staff report and it's on page 12 it's in the list of waivers I think it's waiver three and the lot width is shown there's 190 feet and in fact it is 200 feet so those are my responses and I thank everybody for coming and expressing their opinions

Thank you. All right. At this time, I will bring it back to the Commission for deliberation. All right. With that, I'll get started. Commissioner Cobden.

I didn't want to repeat anything that anybody said. That's why I'm starting. Okay. Thank you. Community for showing up Once again Ventura shows that it cares that it it wants to have a voice It needs to have a voice and hopefully it does have a voice Thank you to the city for all the work you do putting this together this is not easy and thank you to all those people that attempt to get something done here because Progress is inevitable it is needed And but it has to be done very delicately because we all acknowledge we live in paradise And it's easy to spoil and once spoiled it is almost impossible to rectify that so many examples in our state and country and world demonstrate that. So first I want to approach this from a frank only and pros and cons point of view. On the pro side, IT'S ADDITIONAL HOUSING AND WE HAVE A LOT OF INFILL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WHICH TO DO THAT AND IT'S BEEN THIS HORSE HAS BEEN BEATEN BUT STILL NEEDS TO BE SAID. MORE HOUSING IS NEEDED ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN AREAS OF OUR CITY. So that's a good thing. Affordable housing. We've had some very thoughtful advocates for affordable housing come here tonight and say how important it is for them that this be built. Any affordable housing is welcome housing. And by the looks of it, the amenities of the building are They're fine, they're modern. I liked the courtyard look and some of the features I found attractive. I'm not gonna talk about the details, the color, the construction, et cetera. A COMMENT WAS MADE BY KAREN FLOCK ABOUT BUILDING UP AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THAT. I DIDN'T KNOW THE STATISTIC. I'VE LIVED HERE 28 YEARS BUT OUR ROAD TO RESIDENT RATIO IS VERY HIGH HERE AND THAT INDICATES THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF FLAT, WE HAVE LOW DENSITY. THAT'S WHAT THAT INDICATES TO ME. And we made clear over 20 years ago that Ventura County wants slower growth, thoughtful growth, and that's why we went with SOAR to control the ability to just bulldoze and build throughout the county and in our city. So building up is efficient. It's an efficient way to do things and it maximizes what precious resources we have as opposed to building out. I acknowledge that and this body has observed that Thompson Boulevard is evolving into higher density. We have reviewed and approved a couple of projects that are three stories in nature. It's going to happen on Thompson. It's a wide street and so this will not be the first of its kind but this clearly is the most aggressive one that we've faced And so now I want to turn my attention to the cons that I see with this project. Based upon per acre, I did the calculation, this is 111 units per acre. I know it's only 63% of an acre, and that's where the 75 divided by that equates to 111. To me, that's a lot. I don't know of any density other than downtown that approaches that. I could be wrong, but I'm just saying that from my point of view. I feel that the building is too tall. I feel that the building has excessive massing. I feel that there will be parking issues that stem from this and other issues of people crossing the street and more traffic and all those things. I don't like the zero setbacks that are being asked of here. I don't like the light shielding or the shading that the residents behind it are going to suffer. And if that November, December, January, February, there will be a third of the year that some of those backyards will not have the sunlight, most if not all of the day. I don't like that. That's a shock to the system. If I had a magic wand, I would like to say I would like to see if we can negotiate with the developers to bring down the height from 50 feet down to a more manageable 42 or 45. Closer to 40, frankly. Because our general zeitgeist is 30 foot, 32 foot in that realm. That's what I would like to have happen. I would like there to be some setbacks in the front and no concession for setback in the back because of that shading that will occur. All these things I wish for. I don't have a magic wand and I'm not sure that the city attorney would say that anything that I've requested right now is defendable. And therein lies the problem, is because we have pretty aggressive state laws that force us into boxes that make us accept decisions as a community, as a commission, that we don't like. I want it to be a win-win. I want there to be new construction and for people to be able to make money constructing things so that we have more housing and affordable housing and everyone is moderately happy. It's like mediation. If you've ever been through it, you know the goal of a mediator is to make sure everybody walks away unhappy, but that a deal is done. It's a lousy way of doing business, but I don't know that I really have an alternative here. So I've said my piece. I want to hear from the other commissioners. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cromden. Commissioner Whitaker?

Thank you. And I do want to echo a lot of Commissioner Cromden's very eloquently. what I want to say, his comments. And I do want to thank the public for coming out, the public that was for the project and against the project. We do need to hear everybody's point of view. I also want to thank staff for a very thorough staff report and analysis of the project. I kind of had the same thoughts. I mean, the city has voted for a SOAR ordinance. The city residents voted for a SOAR ordinance. And they voted for it again. And so this only leads to the type of development that this development is and it's infill. This project has been envisioned by the city of Ventura and its general plan. We saw this three or four months ago, the Thompson Corridor Plan. The waivers and concessions are all allowed per state and local laws, even though some of them are very hard to swallow. We do need more housing, and I would have liked to see more affordable housing in this project, but I do believe that these smaller units, the one bedrooms and the studios, hopefully, will be affordable to the workers in the city of Ventura, and maybe even the younger people that can move out of their parents' homes. But who knows? I don't know what those costs are going to be, but I'm hoping that because they are a bit smaller, they can be, in essence, affordable. I am very perplexed about the amount of parking. I do know that sometimes city ordinances just kind of have too much onerous parking standards. But I don't think that even requiring one space per unit. So 75 total spaces wouldn't have been a bad requirement. But as we just said, the concessions are not allowing us to require this of the applicant. But I do think that that's just just not one of the things that is acceptable. I'm also disappointed in the number of eight units for very low that are restricted. I would have liked to see more if we're gonna give this many waivers and concessions. As far as the shading, you know, I'm hoping that a lot of those backyards of those homes are very, to the north, are very large yards, so I'm hoping that, you know, the massing is not as big as we are projecting, but it is disappointing that it can't be, it doesn't seem to be being able to build any other way. So those are my comments. And thank you again for everybody that has come out to speak. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lagerquist.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, commissioners, for your thoughts. I want to mostly thank the public for showing up. I always encourage that. I think it's so important for this process. So to both sides, I appreciate everybody's comments. As I go through my comments, I apologize for jumping around. I'm furiously taking notes as we're moving through the meeting, and it's just too hard to keep those thoughts in a logical order so I apologize for that but so I am going to rebuttal a little bit against my fellow commissioners I do think we have a little bit of flexibility here the law does not require the the project to be 75 units it is allowed I understand that but the 75 unit count at this point is a design driven choice it is not a legal requirement and I believe that it's tied more to the developer's financial model than it is to the health of the community, including housing, and I should start off by saying that I am absolutely pro-housing, and this commission is absolutely pro-housing, and as has been stated in my tenure here, we have only denied one project. So we all understand the housing requirements, but it just can't be done at the risk of the community. So I think that the waivers, they are only required if a standard physically precludes the project at that density. They're not for if the project is less profitable. So I think that the number of waivers that are being requested is an issue of design as opposed to density bonus and things like that. So the project increased their units from 50 to 75 by expanding it vertically. reducing the setbacks in the courtyard they allocated space inefficiently I mean it's a building type that doesn't fit the lot and so without any analysis or any other billing type to review you know what is the what is the what is the standards that are physically precluding this project from going to the 75 units, if that's what they insist. The fourth story was added for a roof deck and a clubhouse and additional units. And none of those four units, and it's only four units on that fourth floor, are affordable housing. The applicant did do a good job on discussing the waivers and why they felt like they were okay and appropriate. And I appreciate that. I appreciate their touch points for affordable housing, but there was never an address to the existing residents of this community. And there was really no understanding of why we had to exceed 50 feet to meet their density requirements. I don't feel comfortable approving the design of this building because of its mass and size and subterranean parking without a better understanding of the geotechnical approach. I feel like this is a health and safety concern. In addition, I believe the parking spaces, I understand it's a concession, but this is clearly a financially driven part of this project. They are going to rent the parking spaces I think this presents a very, very big health and safety concern for the community. And let's see, what else do I have? I think I'm gonna tie that up then. So again, I appreciate the need for housing and I firmly, firmly believe in living and working in the same community, absolutely. Um, we are seeing the results of a housing crisis. I understand that. Uh, and for example, for example, the, um, declining school enrollment in our schools. So I am not denying the housing crisis. I just, but on the flip side, you know, we talk about beautiful Ventura and the, but the residents in this neighborhood, they also work hard for their residents and They are going to have a financial impact from this project. They are going to see declining property values. And again, I asked difficult questions from the developer on this, and they conjectured, and I'm doing the same. So I recognize that. But having properties right up against setbacks like this with a really tall building, it's just very hard on the community. So my opinion is that we do have a legal basis to deny this project. And we don't want to create a situation where out of town developers prey on the city under this density bonus law. I think by now we all have a good understanding of the density bonus law and understand the state's requirements. But I think this project, I think there's a defense there. So I'm prepared to deny this project.

Commissioner Abbey.

Thank you, Chair Boussa. This is a hard one tonight, guys. We have to follow the law. And if you knew the law, a lot of you do, a lot of you don't. This is complex. And the way density bonus law is written, It defies what the ordinary citizen would expect the rules for housing are or would be. We like to think, and I certainly like to think that the city, the planning commission, city council has the freedom to listen to our residents and go and follow what they want. Uh, my background, my avocation, not my vocation, but my avocation for number of years now has been community activism and community advocacy, starting with my neighborhood. And that eventually led me to the planning commission. So I have a sensitivity to neighborhood concerns. I also understand that we do have a housing crisis. We need to build more housing. Developers need to build more housing. We need the capital and the energy and monetary, financial, you know, what makes the economy go round. We need that as well. But the problem is, do we do that at the expense of our neighborhoods? Is it too high a price to pay? Is it too bitter a pill? The state density bonus law is trying to solve the problem, and I'll try to keep this part of my analysis short. There's really not a whole lot of funding for housing. So the legislature has tried to devise a plan called the State Density Bonus Law and related laws that incentivize developers to build things that are very precious and very hard to come by, affordable housing units, especially very low affordable housing units there are precious commodities you can see that the state law has gone to great lengths to say you can have all these concessions and warrants i'm not using the right word waivers and set thank you concessions and waivers That's different than what we're used to. We're, we're, we're used to warrants and exceptions. And I, I take a hard look at waivers and exceptions, but when it comes to state density bonus law, it's a whole nother matter that takes a lot of our authority away from us. So it makes us have to make tough decisions that I certainly don't like to make. So just very quickly, without repeating too much, this project's too tall. It does not fit in with the neighborhood. There's not enough side setbacks, rear setbacks. There needs to be at least a 30-foot setback, not grant it to 20. Those are narrow streets. The street right behind it, number of neighbors, They're narrow streets, McMillan Street. You can only get one car at a time. You've got to pull all the way over. I'm very familiar with those streets. This is asking a lot of this neighborhood. Parking spaces, 57, really? Maybe the law allows that, but is that right? Is that fair to these neighbors, to the businesses in the area? I don't want to pontificate too much, but I see real problems with this. The problem I have is, can I legally vote to deny this project? The Design Review Committee looks at the projects from an architectural perspective. Planning Commission has to take a look at it from that perspective, but a much broader perspective. And it would not be as easy for us to deny this. I would like to hear more from Commissioner Lagerquist and fellow commissioners. on what their thinking is. I'm interested in finding a solution. Does this need to be four story? Can we still get to 75 units? It's clear the law says we have to allow 75 units on this. So the question is how do we do that in a way that legally grants with the density bonus state mandate. State mandated density bonus law requires of us. We can't say no to that. We have to answer that. Well, how do we do that? Less tall? How do we rejigger it? How do we do that? I'd like to hear what those suggestions would be. I don't have all the answers at this point. I still don't know how I'm going to vote on this. This is a very tough call for me. That's my thoughts for now, thank you.

Chair Boussa, would you mind if I step in for a moment? Thank you, yes. I wanted to clarify a few things in response to a couple of the comments that we've heard. First, it is the case that a developer is not mandated to utilize the maximum density that they are entitled to under the law. But if they choose to do so, they are entitled to do that, irrespective of anything aside from a specific finding of health and safety concerns, basically. That's point one. Two, I wanted to clarify the distinction again between concessions and waivers. The concessions on this project relate to the height. They do not need to be tied to physical necessity. The waivers do. The third point that I wanted to make is that there's case law extending the protections related to waivers for things like amenities in the building. Broadly speaking, you can't do anything that would require the developer to effectively redesign the project. at this stage in order to accommodate a reduction of the waivers. Absent, again, the findings necessary. Finally, if you're going to push for denial, I recommend doing so based on specific articulated findings applied to each waiver or concession that you think you can do that for. Concessions are allowed by rights. They do not need to be physically necessary for the construction, but there's a limited number of them and they're tied to the total percentage of affordable units. Waivers are unlimited. The way it's actually written in the statute, it doesn't say you're entitled to an unlimited number of waivers. What it says is that the city can't apply any standard that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vega. Commissioner Comden.

Thank you, Chair. Hearing Commissioner Lagerquist, speak it emboldened me i uh i'd very much like to find some findings that we could be specific as city attorney mentions so that we can have some negotiating room here i would very much like to find that and you put the or the first door in the water i i am to put the second door in the water if we can do so There's a couple of things that kind of annoyed me about this process, which I did not mention before. One of which is there's an awful lot of comments that were posted. Most of them were anonymous and of one-line nature, as if they were asked by a friend to do it, not wholehearted, you know, feeling here. It's like we're trying to win a numbers game. I didn't like that. also didn't like the fact that they came planning to do something and then kind of leaned in a different direction to increase i didn't like that either the developer that those those things kind of rubbed me wrong and that along with commissioner lagerquist's feelings kind of makes me want to find a way to to have a sword in this fight and to negotiate for a better project that the community feels more palatable about personally. Thank you.

Commissioner Larquest.

Thank you. I'm not going to say much other than I think that discussion needs to continue. And I just lost my train of thought. It'll come back. Go ahead. Sorry.

I will provide my comments. I want to thank my fellow commissioners for your thoughtful insights and feedback on the project before us tonight. I am in large agreement with all of the comments here tonight. I am disappointed to see the changes that were made post the feedback that was given from DRC. It is really frustrating. to have such control, our local control be taken away from the state density bonus, from the state density bonus laws, but that's exactly what they're intended to do. These laws are built specifically for this to limit the local control and to take local control away because for the last 20 to 30 years, We have not been building enough housing and we are in a housing crisis and so we do need housing and that is why these laws are existing. I will say this again I've said it in prior meetings I encourage everybody in here in this room to know who sets the laws at the state level for you who represents you in this room at the state level for these laws. I really encourage you to find out who those people are and to make your voice heard at that level as well because that is very important and very important. The parking's gonna be a problem. I'm very familiar with that area. The height, the massing of this project feels too much for this space. And that's all very frustrating. And I am moving into this and I'm also very conscious of what our city attorney has shared with us tonight in terms of needing to have a legally defensible specific articulated findings tonight. I also heard a couple things. I heard that this project wasn't even going to come before the planning commission. It doesn't need to, technically, legally. This could have gone through director's hearing. The only reason it didn't was because of the feedback we wanted to come to the public and see if we actually did have a specific legally defensive articulated findings here tonight. that our staff did not find over the course of the last several months and the work that they were doing on this project which I also heard and I want to say thank you to the staff for the continuous work that you've been doing on this project and working with the neighbors and I heard that and I'm really grateful that that was acknowledged and I want to I want to call that out so while and I'm I'm definitely prepared to to open up the conversation to see if we can between the five of us generate a legally defensible specific findings to deny this that our staff was not able to find over the course of the last several months in this project. I'm glad to have that conversation, but I want to be realistic as well in what that outcome and output would look like. I am prepared to have that discussion, and I will leave it at that.

Sorry, can I interject just one more time?

Correct, yes.

I just want to emphasize, or not emphasize, but point out I have researched this on and off for years now. I have yet to find a single appellate level case where a city has successfully made the necessary findings to deny a project on a density bonus waiver or concession. It's possible there's one at a trial court level. I haven't researched every single case out there, but they're vanishingly rare if they exist at all.

Thank you.

For either, either waivers or concessions.

Commissioner Lagerquist.

Yeah, I just, as we start this deliberation, I mean, I appreciate that, but I don't know how to say this kindly, but I don't want the the lack of desire to fight to be the reason that this project moves forward. I think that we, this could be a very much a very pivotal moment in how the city is developed and we should at least try to guide smart development. I think the, you know, The waivers are, I think our basis is gonna be based on two things. I think it's gonna be based on the fact that there are some legitimate health and safety concerns for this project. And the second is going to be going through the individual waivers and asking the question of how those waivers are actual physical constraints on the density bonus and not particularly design choices. such as the courtyard such as the fourth story all of these things are they they seem to be design choices um so those i think are going to be our two paths forward again yeah maybe we are in uncharted territory i get that and i get that it it is a it could be a um a funding cost issue for the city. I understand that as well. But if anything, we need to set an example for developers to come in with projects. All these projects that have had density bonus law that we have approved is because these developers made very concerted efforts to have less mass and more articulation and tried to to really meet the neighborhood requirements. And this project did none of that, literally. And literally made it worse between the design review committee and the planning commission. And so I just, I feel, you know, I appreciate that this is uncharted territory. I'm not afraid. I'm not the lawyer, I get that. I'm not the legal team, and I'm also not the city funding it, although I am a taxpayer. I just think we have to try.

Commissioner Abbey.

OK. It looks like we need to hash out at least some initial attempts. I don't have those yet. But we have concessions and we have labors. OK. So there's a difference. Could we put the concessions and waivers up on the screen? We may need to go through them one by one, maybe pick out some of the more obvious or more troubling ones and make some initial attempts at saying whether or not we think that's a health or safety concern. If we make progress, that's one thing. If not, we don't chair. You were going to say something.

Yeah, it might behoove us to have staff. And perhaps this was I'm remiss that we didn't do this during question time. But for staff, since it was staff's determination that is brought us to this point and i and i would i i definitely i'm supportive of finding a project that is better and more thoughtful for this area i would like to say i i don't think there's a lack of desire to fight i do think staff has been doing that i think we are up against these laws and that's what we're working within but i do think it would be nice if staff could i mean right here we see the requirements of the proposal but could staff explain how each requested raver is necessary in their mind to achieve the permitted density which i think is the question we're seeking to understand so that we can make sure that we know if we are coming up with an objection to that that we are grounded in what staff with advice of council has already determined for those i i want to make it very clear that we cannot require the development to show the developer to show its work

It's our burden to prove otherwise. We can't ask them to affirmatively show why they need these waivers. Correct.

But staff reviewed that. Staff can.

Staff can do that. The other thing I wanted to mention is that I wanted to clarify again the distinction between waivers and concessions. Concessions do not need to be physically necessary for the construction. So the reference to height, that doesn't need to be physically required in order to get the requisite density. Okay. Concessions and waivers. The applicants are entitled to a limited number of concessions based on the percentage of affordable units they've provided. Concessions are essentially granted by right absent a showing of specific adverse impact on health and safety. restrict the city from imposing any condition on the developments that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project. And to be clear, the project does include things like amenities for this purpose. There's case law that says that. So that would include the gym, it would include the courtyard probably, things like that would be included. So, for waivers, either showing that they are not physically necessary or the impact on health and safety. Concessions, just health and safety, waivers, both options.

Commissioner Comden, yes. So I'd like to just follow the first one. On this waiver, the first one, instead of a 10-foot front yard setback, they're requesting zero setback. And I heard during the discussion that the sidewalk would be, in some places, six foot from property line to curb. Was I correct? So that is correct. OK, so in that case, it sounds to me that it could be hazardous, a public safety issue if someone were to. I just think that circumstance could set up a situation where someone could find themselves in the street and it could be a danger to both the pedestrian and to cars because there is no setback. Again, I haven't looked at the configuration of where the stairs are, entry points and things like that, but in that particular case, six feet is this wide from property line to curb. That seems too limited to me. Just one particular point.

So just to clarify, that's the city's standard for the sidewalk width.

From property line to curb?

The actual sidewalk width being six feet is the city standard. Is it? Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Thompson happens to be one of the faster road ways. I could see it in a lot of other areas. So be it.

Commissioner Abbey, then Commissioner Largoquist.

Well, let's take a stab at parking. I don't know if it will make headway or not.

Go ahead.

Commissioner Lagerquist, yes.

Thank you. I think the question to ask is how would a minor setback Or could the city argue that a minor setback would not actually reduce the density, right? That's the question. If the city requires a setback, would it actually reduce the density of the project?

So it's not just the density, it's the actual size of the units that they've requested. So we can't ask them to make the units smaller in order to just accommodate smaller units. The density includes the size of the units that they're requesting, so we can't shave off pieces of the units to include, for example, saying that they keep this density and build 100 square foot units, what have you, we're not allowed to ask them to do that. So effectively for all of these waivers, these are all requests that allow them to build the building effectively in the number of units and the size of the units that they're requesting. Do you see how we're, I mean, we're extremely limited here, and this is from case law, this is the way the density bonus law is written. Certainly staff has looked at all of these waivers, looked at this project, many other density bonus projects. I just wanna make that clear.

It sounds like we're gonna have to focus on any health and safety concerns that we might have. I think parking is a huge one. I think that is a very legitimate health and safety concern. I think asking this neighborhood to absorb the parking for this development, it's too much. With the school nearby, the other residences, this neighborhood is already very parking challenged. I can't even fathom I agree. I mean, I would love a world where we could rely on public transit and we could develop like this and people could walk to the public transit and get exactly where they need. I mean, that is definitely the ideal. I get that, but that is not the reality. And right now we've got, you know, I forget how many studios there were, but there were, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but overall there's more one, two and three bedroom units overall. They're gonna have one to two cars. It's too many cars. for this development, and we're putting residents at risk, we're putting children at risk, we're putting vehicular travel at risk on Thompson. I think it may be our only recourse, but it's legitimate.

Commissioner Winninger first. I'm not sure I can take comment from. Can I just clarify something? I have public comment. It's closed at this time.

You really are only responding to questions. If the commission has questions, that's all that you're responding to.

You're not allowed to offer comment response. Commissioner Whitaker was next.

Yes, thank you, Chair Boussa. I'm glad we moved on from the waivers because I do feel like we cannot do anything regarding the waivers as a health and safety issue. While we were, some of the deliberations, I was on Google Earth and I was looking at the area and the site And, you know, the number of parking spaces is just too low. And, I mean, I would be happy with at least 75, at least one space per unit. I know they do that in Santa Barbara a lot. But, you know, I was looking at the street. It's a four-lane street, two ways, you know, two one way, two the other. People, you know, having to park across the street and running across the street to the to their apartment um i think you could make the argument too that you know if there were any school-age children and they're coming from cabrillo they're crossing the street as well not necessarily in the crosswalk and i mean you think you could make the argument that is it is a health and safety issue of having not enough spaces for the residents Also, we heard from the developer that they were going to charge for the spaces, so that's not even making it available for the affordable units possibly. That's a concern of mine as well. That's pretty much my only issue with this project in the sense that of all the other things that I don't think we can do anything about. But I just, not, you know, one space per unit is, you know, that's almost like a dignity thing almost, too, besides the health and safety. Commissioner Abbey?

Yeah, I would think any project would want to provide sufficient parking. That's only fair to the residents of that area. I agree with the parking as definitely an issue. This project's grossly under-parked. And I agree, it's a four-lane street to each direction. There's Chrisman, there's the crosswalk there that has the flashing lights. You've got McMillan that comes down. They've heard the testimony about problems with bicycles and so forth. I think we need to package this to make the point. I think it's worth, at a bare minimum, to work on this parking aspect. I'll wait on other aspects, but this is definitely one that resonates with me.

I would agree on that. I guess my question would be, because I agree. I think we're going to be flooding that neighborhood. You look at McMillan, you can barely drive down. It's like you got to pull over when cars are driving by. Some of those other streets are, and they are very narrow. I do think that that poses a risk to that neighborhood. but i'm not sure i i would need to better understand what the city would have to prove would there be a traffic study that would need to be provided that would demonstrate an increase of or a lack of a diminished safety for the neighborhood what would that might be a valid basis for findings that uh that the parking issue uh would would represent uh or would cause a specific adverse impact on the health and safety of the populace And how would that be? Because it's going to be on the burden of the city to approve that. So what would have to go through? And did the staff already explore that option when they were given a 57 number of units on a 75?

Well, that's a better question for staff. I don't know.

I'm just looking at Shanna for sure. But I guess my first question, what would the city have to provide as a burden of proof that is to you?

It's hard to say exactly. I mean, again, I haven't seen a single case where the city has succeeded in making this argument. So I genuinely don't know what a court would require.

Thank you. And then to the staff.

If a recommendation tonight would be to explore traffic analysis, then our public works team would coordinate with their traffic analysis team, and they would request that to be done. It would probably take a few weeks to a month, depending on the timing of that consultant. And I don't know what the results of that study may be, but if it supported the conclusion you're making today, then we would include that as part of that. But I don't know that the conclusion would make

right well i'm my question is like during dac did that what comments came in from traffic around knowing that there's going to be 75 units and 57 parking spots the public works department didn't raise concerns about traffic nor did they require traffic analysis at that time they required some details to be shown along the frontage and the right-of-way in the driveway but nothing outside of that meaning they did not see any worry or concern with the lack of parking in the impact to the neighborhood correct Commissioner Whitaker, do you have a comment?

Does Public Works actually look at parking or they look at the roadways and the safety issues? They're not really looking at the parking. That's a zoning issue, correct?

Correct. They look at the zoning, but also the density of the housing development may trigger them to look at LOS. We do have that standard. And if it triggered VMT, and in this case it did not.

I know in my experience in working with Public Works at the city, that was something that they would consider. I remember a project over on the avenue and parking became a big concern and it was brought up by Public Works and their review of DACA was impetus to my question. Yes.

I think it might be helpful. I pulled up the full definition of specific adverse impact as used in the statute. A specific adverse impact means significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. And then there's a list of things that wouldn't constitute a specific adverse impact. inconsistency with zoning ordinance or general land use designation, the eligibility to claim a welfare exemption. This is probably irrelevant. Trying to find others that might be relevant here. I'll keep looking. I'm not seeing any that are directly on point.

Thank you, city attorney. That was a very detailed description of what would need to be found in order to have a finding of denial. Any other comments from the commission? Commissioner Abbey?

I don't know how far we'll get on this one, but I at least make the attempt. Let me just set it up by saying there's a apartment building on the corner of Main Street, and I think it's San Clemente, across from Ventura High School. So the building, in my opinion, it has a good look to it. It might be a little taller than I would personally like, but what my opinion is is neither here nor there. But it's a three-story project. It is on the south side of the street. So in winter, the sun's low in the sky coming from the south. Now, what's across the street is Ventura High School. So the fact that this building is bigger is not as important to the residents who are directly next to that building. because obviously the sun's hitting their properties. If you don't get sun on the Venture High School parking lot or Main Street, it's not as important. You have more problem when you have taller buildings going next to single-family residential neighborhoods, especially when you get up to three-story, four-story for sure. And you get to December 21st, and we saw some shade studies. I don't know who provided those. I don't know if that was from the public. I believe it probably was. Could any mileage be made out of the fact that people are gonna be depressed and be in the shade for, you know, it's like, why does the neighborhood have to suffer that?

One of the things that the law does on this in general is distinguish between public interests and private interests. So the impact of shade on a private property probably wouldn't give rise to the sort of findings that you would need to make a specific finding of adverse impacts on the health and safety. Again, tied to all these other things, I would also caution that that's a potentially conjectural form of harm to a limited number of people rather than to the public at large.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Abbey. Bringing it back to the parking, if that is a space, I'm curious if the commission believes that we would be able to find a significant quantifiable adverse impact to be able to deny this project. For me at this moment, I don't feel confident in that ability at this time to make that denial. That's where I'm unfortunately at right now. Commissioner Abbey?

We may not have the individual expertise To do that and I know staff's probably not inclined To look into that but if there are concerns that we have as a commission specifically as it relates to parking It sounds to me like There might be a majority that feel that that is a significant enough problem. That is a potential health and safety concern perhaps we could ask staff to look specifically at that issue and and see if they are able to help us produce those findings, obviously that's not gonna happen tonight. It doesn't look like that's gonna happen. So I'm just wondering if that's a potential avenue.

Commissioner Winninger, then Commissioner Lagerquist. Commissioner Lagerquist, then Commissioner Comden.

I would say because a traffic study has not been completed, then we don't know the answer. And a traffic study would be a quantifiable analysis of health and safety concerns for that area. And we don't have that. So maybe it wouldn't come out in a way that allows us to deny the project in the future. but we would be remiss not to provide that traffic study for the health of that community.

Commissioner Comden. Thank you, Chair.

I agree. We've heard from many of the residents that parking is a major concern for them. So what would be the mechanism? Would we continue this meeting until a traffic study is presented to us or would we vote to deny based upon a traffic study and then recommend it back to Council? How does that work?

So you have a number of options. This is meeting number three. We have five total public hearings available, which we generally like to keep at least one for an appeal. You can continue this item and give direction. You can make a motion to approve or deny based on whatever findings and then certainly you wouldn't recommend that council look at it ultimately the developer or someone else could appeal whatever decision is made I do want to also remind you that if you do make a determination of adverse impacts that they would need to be based on court some court decisions related to this that they would need to be impacts that couldn't be mitigated in some way. So for example, when you do a traffic study and you find that there are impacts, there is a mitigation of that impact to help alleviate the traffic in some way. And I would say focusing on either traffic or parking would be helpful in this conversation as well. A traffic study wouldn't necessarily relate to the availability of parking, just as an example.

parking utilization study of the neighborhood yeah would be warranted then or required for that like we would do down at the parking structures downtown when they do parking utilization determinations right uh it certainly could be something that they would could be looked into uh commissioner condon unit commissioner abby

Yeah, I was just going to follow up with that. Is there anything in the planning sphere or in the legal sphere related to planning that ties deficient parking to connecting adverse traffic and parking, how they impact each other in terms of health and safety, the nexus between those?

I'm going to make a comment that is counter to what I think your argument might be making, but I want to play out is looking at these new state laws, they are really looking at providing incentives to build density near transit. The AB 2097, which is not applicable on this project, is one of those such laws that when we have transit, Bus and or trains that function properly. There's no parking required And so within a half mile of the Amtrak station downtown no parking is required We've had a number of projects come in and even though they could have taken advantage of that chose not to because they say the market needs parking because we're in a community that hasn't quite caught up to other places where they have better transit and So I would say the laws are moving towards a direction of not requiring parking and looking at parking like it's not necessarily a necessity in our modern age. So that's I think a part of this is these laws are not necessarily protecting parking as an amenity or something that you have a right to. It's a benefit. But we typically wouldn't look at that as a safety concern by not having parking. They do have 76% of the units would have one parking space if they each had a space. So the majority of the units would have a parking space. And there are units that are on the smaller size. And so there are arguments for the studios and smaller units not necessarily generating a parking demand in certain places. But there aren't specific connections between safety and parking specifically. I would say it's more about traffic.

one more point on that it's going to be cautious not to conflate traffic caused by the density of the building with traffic or parking considerations caused by whether it's underground or on the street so it won't be enough necessarily to show that there's more people because that would be true just by the definite by the density of the project it would have to be something to do with the specific session being requested which relates to the amount of space is provided on the property. Yeah.

additionally I think you know from what I'm hearing obviously you know kind of looking at lack of parking there can be impacts from a lack of parking but ultimately there's a number of cases as well where reduction in parking aren't seen as an environmental impact for CEQA and are instead considered like a social impact so overcrowding and things like that so aren't necessarily viewed in the same way in terms of the impact that they have on people and we've been looking for cases where people have denied or communities have denied density bonus projects for parking and haven't found any

Commissioner Largo quest I guess I'd be interested in you know the statistic that shows what I mean that doesn't tell the whole story right we don't know also what those projects proposed you know how many projects proposed such a discrepancy in parking I mean you know density bonus law says what was 82 and we're at 57 and The requirement is 107, so it's a very, very large discrepancy. So have other projects been, maybe there just haven't been projects that have that big of a discrepancy. So I just want to caution that stat without the full story.

There are certainly a lot of examples of projects that have pretty similar, if not more, reductions in parking with density bonus. We can certainly get some data for you. And in general, I think it's helpful to show examples in the future, so that's something we can prep in the background.

Thank you. Any other comments from the Commission? Commissioner Whitaker?

Obviously, I think we're a thoughtful body, and we are really considering the amount of waivers for this property and the concessions. And the fact that I think we all agree that this is a lot of 75 units put into this building, and it's a lot for the size of this almost three-quarters of an acre. The parking is not great. There's shading issues. There's so many issues of this development, but I just don't see a way to make any types of findings that we can hold our head to. you know, hang our hat on today. I think we've been very thoughtful in all of the comments that a lot of people are still here, and I appreciate that, and I just don't feel, I feel like we've exhausted what we actually can do as a body. My question is to the city attorney. If this planning commission decides to deny this project, do we have to make specific findings to deny it?

Yes.

And they would have to be legal findings?

Yes, you'd have to make findings that one or more concessions or waivers causes a specific advert, it's the whole quote that I just gave you.

Yes, okay, correct.

Based on written findings you'd want, yeah. So it would have to be more than conjecture, it would have to be something based on data, data that I don't think that we have here today.

And so what you would do is make that decision and then we would come back at the next meeting with the actual resolution that makes those same findings so that you could adopt that resolution.

So as we sit here today at this hour, I do not feel like we can make those findings. So I would probably be voting in favor of this project and hope that somehow, some way, maybe the developer can respond to the neighbor's concerns and perhaps make this a better project. And that's all I can do at this point. Commissioner Largois.

I think I've been pretty clear on how I feel about it. I disagree. I think that Approving the project tonight sets a precedence. I'm not sure what our governing body is for if we approve this project if we feel like that we never have And I get it. I am I'm I understand The understand staff and I appreciate staff. I always appreciate staff and all they do I just what What example, what precedents are we setting by allowing a developer who refuses to work with the city, or at least work with the community, on presenting a project that fits that community? I feel like we do have a health and safety concern that is quantifiable, and I just feel like I don't understand what project could ever be brought to us that we could deny. The project doesn't have to be 75 units. I understand that it is allowed. I get that. But it doesn't have to be. This is a developer that is refusing. It's not that we don't want this lot developed, and it's not that we don't want housing. It's so important. That is not what we're saying. But this developer has absolutely refused to work with the Ventura community. And I just feel like as a governing body, I mean, if, you know, I don't know what else to say. I just feel like we can try again.

Commissioner Abbey.

I appreciate where Commissioner Lagerquist is coming from. I would take a slight exception to the characterization that this developer hasn't tried. I don't know what the conversation with staff has been. I'm sure everything's been above board. I have no question about that. I think we have a great staff. I think the bigger problem has to do with the density bonus law itself. It forces us, it forces the, if we're gonna get more affordable housing, we have to sacrifice, in some potential instances, this one being possibly one of them, where it puts more impacts on the neighborhood than I would like to see, and more than I think is fair to the existing neighborhood. So I just make that slight qualification. But I, in the general thrust of what Commissioner Lagerquist, where she's coming from, I agree. We need to, if we can legally defend this position, and I think we need to at least make the attempt. I think that's worthwhile, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Emme. Commissioner Lowe, a request?

Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to respond. I don't see how the developer has attempted to try and is forcing the city's hand on this matter. Again, it's not a requirement that the development is 75 units, that it is allowed. the developer could reduce the number of units or reconfigure or make some sort of changes to help fit this development into the community better. And that's just what I'm saying. It doesn't have to be 75 units. And again, it was 70 to start. And we don't have any visibility on the financial, their calculations on what their needs are in order to make this a viable development. We don't have that luxury. So I just, I can't see how the developer has tried in any way to make this a development that fits into this community.

Thank you. And I will one comment back onto that and kind of what our body is for. Again, this project shouldn't be here. This isn't a project for planning commission to roll on. It's not. It was a decision made by the director to bring it here tonight. so that we could hear from the public. And if there is a legally defensible quantifiable argument against it, then we can bring that. I personally don't, I understand the, and I really appreciate Commissioner Loggerquist's approach on the dissatisfaction with the developer in the sense of making it bigger, adding more units and setting a precedence of that degree. But I also have heard from staff and city attorney tonight on several questions related to how we would legally defend this and the cost of what that would take and time and delay is not something that I want to support at this moment. So I'd be prepared to approve the project due to the lack of legally identified quantifiable adverse impacts at the moment that we currently don't have. If there's any other comments from the commission, if not, I'm ready to take a motion.

I'll move to approve the project.

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor to move staff's recommendation, approve the waivers and concessions as conditioned. Please enter your vote. Waiting on two more votes, one more vote. Please just make sure that you confirm your vote also.

Push that lock vote button.

All votes have been entered. Two ayes, motion fails.

Okay, take another motion? Nope, motion fails, motion denies. Do we need to take a motion to deny the project, or is that?

Yes, so that motion fails. It doesn't do the opposite of that motion. So whatever decision you make has to be voted and adopted by at least three of you or approved by at least three of you.

Commissioner Abbey.

Okay, so what are two avenues we can take right now? One is outright deny. I wouldn't be comfortable with that. What's another option?

I mean, I will say, and it is up to the chair, but I would suggest talking to the applicant and see if they have any requests of you. Often that happens when you get to this place. Certainly you don't have to, but your options would be, you can continue to make the same motion over and over again, first of all. That happens, unfortunately. So you can make the same motion. It doesn't eliminate that ability. You can make a motion to continue. You can also make a motion to deny. You could also approve with conditions as another alternative. So there's kind of a range of options for you. But my suggestion would be to ask the applicant if there's any specific interest from them on a direction to go. If the chair so.

Thank you. Thank you Dr. Diamond. Yes actually I would I appreciate that guidance. Applicant at this time given the concerns of the commission around the sizing and the parking is there are there any considerations that the applicant would take based off of the comments here this evening that could accommodate a better fit with the neighborhood in terms of its impact.

I don't know if you heard that. They had it requested. Can they have five minutes? Do you want to take a break?

Yes, we could take a... Yes, please. Thank you.

Can I respond to one thing on that real quick? And it's really just a clarification, mostly for Commissioner Powell.

Sorry, we're in a break. Maybe you can ask after.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, it looks like we are back from our break and appreciate taking some time. Thank you.

We've discussed this, as I can assure you, we have many times. over the life of this project, we don't know what to do that can help in this parking situation. There is no place else to add any more parking. And the only thing we can think of is further explain that Out of these 75 units, 62 of them are studios and one bedrooms, which would require only one parking space anyway. And between the cost of automobiles, the cost of insurance, the cost of fuel, and especially eight of these people being very low income, we are quite confident that not all of the occupants of these units in this project will have their own car. The site is sitting on a public transit route, and you can walk downtown, you can walk to the beach, and I mean, looking forward, even when a lot of people smarter than me predict in the future, there's gonna be a lot less car ownership and car sharing. uh we think it will work and especially by getting the waiver to pushing that parking garage out to the rear we have squeezed as many parking spaces onto this site as we could physically

figure out how to do and there's just no solution beyond that possibly adding some more bicycle parking Ron has mentioned that is a possibility but there's just no place to put it yeah we could expand the bicycle capacity to you know whatever we want to expand it to we have space in that basement area for storage you know we're thinking that this building is going to be occupied by a lot of young people that may commute by skateboard, bicycle, e-bike, and so on. So our clients who operate some apartment buildings in the valley think that this is a reasonable approach to parking.

Yeah, and it's been our understanding the whole time, we did not choose to do this because we want this project to work. but into the future operationally. But it's been our understanding that The concessions, if we meet the affordable housing requirement, are mandatory. There is no discretion in that. And we would never do it, but we could have asked for 20 parking spaces or 30 parking spaces. Saved a bunch of money on the size of that underground parking garage. But that wasn't a realistic choice. We put as much there as we can put. And we don't know what else to do to...

mitigate this what's considered a potential problem on this and subterranean parking is very expensive I mean you know an option could be go down to zero parking and get rid of the whole parking structure to reduce the cost of the project and maybe then a smaller project would would pencil but then you'd have no parking well I don't think that is the outcome we would want yeah it doesn't make sense to us

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions from the commission? Commissioner Winnegar?

I'm still... I don't know what the next step here is. We've talked to the applicant. If we deny this project, if we do another vote and it's 3-2 to deny, the three commissioners that are voting for the denial will have to come up with the legal basis of denying it. and the city will have to bring that back to us next uh and at the next um planning commission and then we might have more planning commissioners that want to chime in that might not agree with that that that's legal finding we might have the city attorney have more information for us if it's legal or not but to me that's the only other option we have here

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Largoquist?

Thank you. If the project is denied, do we have to put together a defensible tonight or would it go to city council?

Your obligation here, if you're going to make a denial, is to make findings consistent with the denial. Whether that happens tonight or at a future meeting depends on what you would like to do.

and so we would then take that information and incorporate it into the actual reso since we don't have a resolution before you that includes any of that information and we wouldn't be able to craft one on the fly tonight so you would make a determination and then we would come back with that resolution again i actually to your point very interesting i i don't know what happens um with more people here i i assume that if they weren't here they wouldn't vote on that resolution um but i've never had this circumstance happen if we're bringing it back and there's a new resolution i would think it would have to be considered a new item um and it would be heard i believe by the whatever quorum is present for that meeting uh another alternative would be to

continue this and request that staff put together information that might support a finding of some sort and see what we land on.

And if it were to come back to the commission, that would absorb one of the final two meetings that are allowed, correct?

Correct.

Does that include city council? Yes.

Yes.

It includes an appeal, basically?

An appeal, assuming it took place to the city council, would count as one of the five meetings. If we have completed five meetings before an appeal has taken place, that could create any number of issues.

Could be allowable?

Highly inadvisable. You don't want to get to the point where you have five meetings and we haven't had an appeal yet because then we have competing rights. Somebody has a right to bring an appeal. We have no avenue to compel one. it would create some problems.