[7:11] 26. I welcome committee members who are

[7:13] with us here in the audience and those

[7:15] who are watching at home. Will the

[7:17] secretary please take role? Commissioner

[7:20] Vanderm

[7:21] » Present.

[7:22] » Commissioner Murphy

[7:23] » Here.

[7:24] » Commissioner Edsil

[7:26] » Here.

[7:26] » Vice Chair Davidson

[7:28] » Here. and chair chair lemon here.

[7:32] » Thank you. And um now Commissioner Zel

[7:35] will lead us in the pledge of

[7:36] allegiance.

[7:37] » Yes, please stand and put your hand over

[7:38] your heart.

[7:40] I

[7:41] » Pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[7:43] United States of America and to the

[7:46] republic for which it stands, one nation

[7:49] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[7:52] justice for all.

[7:57] » Thank you. Our um next item on the

[8:00] agenda is our consent calendar. Are

[8:02] there any items that any commissioner

[8:04] would like to pull for discussion?

[8:08] I'm fine. Okay. So, seeing none, is

[8:11] there a motion to approve the consent

[8:12] calendar?

[8:14] » So, moved.

[8:15] » I'll second it.

[8:18] » Thank you. Please call for a vote.

[8:20] » Commissioner Vander Muan,

[8:22] » Yes.

[8:22] » Commissioner Murphy,

[8:24] » Yes.

[8:24] » Commissioner Edel,

[8:25] » Yes. Vice Chair Davidson,

[8:27] » Yes.

[8:28] » Chair Leone,

[8:29] » Yes.

[8:31] » Okay. And the motion passes.

[8:34] And next, um, our general public

[8:36] comments. This is, uh, for any person of

[8:40] the public, um, who would like to speak

[8:42] on an item that is not on tonight's

[8:44] agenda.

[8:47] Okay. Seeing um no comments, we will

[8:51] close a public comment and move on to

[8:54] the next item um which is uh commercial

[8:57] plan development 258 Rove Operating LLC

[9:01] with a recommendation to adopt a

[9:02] resolution approving the CPD. And we'll

[9:06] now hear a presentation.

[9:09] Okay.

[9:10] » Thank you, Chair Leone. This item will

[9:12] be presented by associate planner Serena

[9:15] Gonzalez.

[9:17] Good evening, commissioners and members

[9:19] of the public. Um, tonight I will be

[9:21] presenting on CBD 258, Rove. Um,

[9:27] this is a request uh made by Matt Stow

[9:30] from Rove Operating LLC to construct a

[9:33] new EV charging station and market on

[9:36] approximately 6 61,552

[9:40] square ft of a vacant 2.79 acre lot

[9:43] located on the corner of Ventura

[9:45] Boulevard and Camaro Center Drive.

[9:51] The project site has a general plan

[9:53] designation of commercial and zoning

[9:55] designation of commercial plan

[9:57] development.

[9:59] To the north of this site is Ventura

[10:01] Boulevard and the 101 freeway.

[10:05] To the east of this site, you have the

[10:10] motel right here and then the mobile

[10:12] home development down here. Uh to the

[10:16] south of the project site will be the

[10:18] Quickquack project site um and also a

[10:21] portion of the Camrio Premium Outlets.

[10:24] And then to the west is another portion

[10:27] of the Camaro Premium Outlets.

[10:32] Um this is the existing site, a view

[10:36] from Camaro Center Drive facing

[10:38] southeast. Um it is currently just grass

[10:42] and some other miscellaneous uh shrubs

[10:45] and bushes. Uh two previous um

[10:48] developments have been approved for the

[10:50] site but were never constructed. Um that

[10:52] was an automobile service station and aa

[10:54] building. Um but the vacant the site has

[10:58] remained vacant since.

[11:02] Here is uh the site plan. You can see

[11:05] that there is an area for the retail

[11:08] building here. Um the tenant will be

[11:10] determined at a later date. Um and then

[11:13] over here will be the parking lot with

[11:16] approximately 40 EV charging spaces. The

[11:19] EV charging equipment will be located

[11:22] along this east property line here.

[11:30] Um this is the phasing plan. Uh the

[11:34] applicant

[11:36] um proposes to do this project in two

[11:38] different phases. The first being um

[11:41] underground infrastructure in the

[11:42] parking lot here with the EV chargers

[11:46] and um before the building is built, the

[11:52] applicant will be required to maintain

[11:54] this building pad here with landscaping.

[11:57] Um keep it looking nice until a tenant

[11:59] is identified. um and the second phase

[12:03] uh commences.

[12:08] Um

[12:10] there will also be a shared loading dock

[12:12] that you can't see on this specific um

[12:14] site plan, but you'll be able to see it

[12:16] on the quick hack one. Um that'll be

[12:18] right in the middle. So that way both

[12:20] sites have access um for loading. There

[12:24] won't be too much loading for either of

[12:26] them as it's a relatively small market.

[12:29] And then the um car wash doesn't get too

[12:32] many deliveries.

[12:36] Uh we went over the elevations a bit

[12:38] during architectural review, but um to

[12:42] kind of go through them again, you can

[12:44] see here um the east and west

[12:48] elevations. They are um done in an early

[12:53] Californian Mediterranean uh style that

[12:58] is

[13:00] compliant with the heritage zone as well

[13:03] as the specific plan. Um here shows a

[13:07] mural mockup as well as these two. Um

[13:10] the final design of the mural will be

[13:13] subject to um the approval of the

[13:15] community development department um at a

[13:17] later time. Uh the building will be done

[13:21] in gray tones um that comply with the

[13:25] heritage zone. And here are the north

[13:31] and south elevations. Um you can see

[13:34] that the building includes different

[13:36] types of trelluses um and features to

[13:40] break up the um facades.

[13:44] Here's also the materials board. So you

[13:46] can see the the glazing of the windows

[13:48] to tie in the colors, the three

[13:50] different gray tones as well as um the

[13:54] metal that will be used on or the

[13:56] aluminum that will be used throughout

[13:58] the building

[14:05] to streamline environmental review. Um

[14:07] Parker Environmental prepared a single

[14:10] class 32 categorical exemption report

[14:13] for both Quickquack Car Wash and Rove

[14:15] charging and market projects. Um these

[14:18] two developments share the same parcel

[14:20] or both infill commercial uses

[14:21] consistent with zoning and the general

[14:23] plan. The combined analysis

[14:26] um confirm that neither project triggers

[14:28] any exceptions to the exemption. There

[14:31] are no unusual circumstances, cumulative

[14:33] impacts or significant effects related

[14:35] to traffic, air quality, noise or

[14:37] biological resources. The project is

[14:40] fully served by existing infrastructure,

[14:42] water, sewer, storm water, and emergency

[14:44] services. So, no extensions or major

[14:46] upgrades are needed. The site has no

[14:48] sensitive habitat habitats, is currently

[14:51] vacant, and contains only ornamental

[14:52] trees and invasive grasses. US Fish and

[14:55] Wildlife Service data confirms that

[14:57] there are no endangered or threatened

[14:58] spec species or critical habitats here.

[15:01] Air quality was a key consideration

[15:03] given the site's proximity to

[15:04] residential uses. The analysis applied

[15:07] Ventura County Air Pollution Control

[15:09] District's thresholds and modeled

[15:11] construction and operational emissions

[15:13] using Cal EOD. The results indicate that

[15:17] nitrogen oxides emissions will be

[15:20] approximately 22 pounds per day.

[15:22] While that figure may sound high, it is

[15:25] important to note that this is a

[15:26] regional planning metric, not not a

[15:29] health-based standard. The VCA PCD

[15:32] threshold for significance is 25 pounds

[15:35] per day, and the project remains below

[15:37] that level. Compliance with this

[15:39] threshold means that the project's

[15:40] contribution to regional air quality

[15:42] impacts is considered less than

[15:43] significant under SQA. Furthermore,

[15:46] actual exposures for nearby residents,

[15:48] including those in adjacent mobile home

[15:50] parks, will be far below harmful

[15:51] concentrations because emissions

[15:53] disperse quickly and represent a

[15:55] negligible increase compared to existing

[15:57] background levels. A detailed sound plan

[16:00] analysis modeled worst case conditions,

[16:02] assuming all EV chargers and HVAC units

[16:04] operating simultaneously, and confirmed

[16:07] compliance with city standards. At the

[16:09] nearest residential property line,

[16:11] predicted project noise is only about 49

[16:14] dBA during the day and 38 at night,

[16:16] which is below the city's limits of 55

[16:19] during the day and 45 at night. Combined

[16:23] levels remain at existent ambient

[16:25] conditions measuring the pro project,

[16:28] meaning the project will not increase

[16:29] noise exposure for nearby residents. To

[16:31] enjoy ensure continued compliance, a

[16:34] post-operational noise study will be

[16:36] required after opening.

[16:41] Um, tonight staff recommends that the

[16:44] planning commission find that the

[16:45] project qualifies for a class 32

[16:48] categorical exemption pursuant to

[16:50] section 15332 of the California

[16:54] Environmental Quality Act guidelines and

[16:56] that they adopt a resolution approving

[16:59] CPD 258 subject to the recommended

[17:02] conditions of approval.

[17:05] All right,

[17:07] that's it. Thank you.

[17:09] » Thank you. Do any of the commissioners

[17:12] have questions for staff?

[17:15] Um,

[17:18] on

[17:20] on the two projects on one lot, do we

[17:22] know if those are going to be leased or

[17:24] eventually divided or do we have any

[17:26] clue on that?

[17:28] » Currently, it is one owner. Um, okay. We

[17:31] have not indicated specifically whether

[17:34] they will sell them off. Um, they're

[17:38] maybe talks about lots, but we haven't

[17:40] determined quite yet. Okay,

[17:47] » I'm done.

[17:48] » Yeah. On the two different uses,

[17:53] are will they be two different owners?

[17:56] » Uh, yeah. uh for the

[17:59] » Yeah, I'm sorry. So, there's two

[18:01] different CDP

[18:02] » CPDs. Yes.

[18:03] » CP Yes. in front of us. And are each of

[18:06] those a different owner?

[18:09] » Yeah. The businesses will be owned

[18:10] separately, but the parcel is currently

[18:12] owned by one owner

[18:14] » And they will lease the land, I guess,

[18:16] from I got it. Okay.

[18:20] » All right. And then the the noise

[18:22] studies that you mentioned, the 49 dBA

[18:24] during the day and I think 38 at night.

[18:26] Um was that done by a recent noise study

[18:29] for the through the through through the

[18:30] applicant?

[18:31] » Yes, it was um prepared specifically for

[18:33] this project um updated as recently as

[18:36] October 30th.

[18:38] » Okay. And then how soon after the

[18:40] project is up and running will the

[18:44] future uh noise study be required?

[18:47] » We have conditioned it I believe for six

[18:49] months after

[18:50] » Six months. Okay. Thank you.

[18:54] » I have a question. Uh did the uh traffic

[18:57] engineer or anybody did they look into

[19:00] the concern about the traffic going into

[19:03] there?

[19:04] » Yes. And we have uh Rick Aos here. Um if

[19:07] you have any specific questions or if

[19:09] you would like him to speak on that.

[19:10] » I I just saw this one comment we got and

[19:13] I thought they made some good points

[19:15] that should at least be discussed. So, I

[19:17] just want to know what they did they do

[19:19] a traffic study or

[19:20] » Um they did submit a traffic study as

[19:22] part of that um as part of their

[19:24] application

[19:25] » And and they they're not requiring any

[19:28] kind of medication for it. They didn't

[19:30] think that was necessary.

[19:32] » No, that the um traffic study and I'm

[19:35] sure Rick can go into this in a little

[19:37] bit more detail um did not show that

[19:39] there would be any need for any

[19:41] mitigation measures.

[19:43] » Okay.

[19:44] Thank you.

[19:46] I have a question. Could you go back to

[19:47] one of the slides that just shows the

[19:49] general um y

[19:50] » Overall of the area? I think it's the

[19:52] one that showed where the where

[19:53] everything was.

[19:53] » This one or the other one there was

[19:56] » Um back further. It's the one that

[19:57] showed There we go. That one.

[19:59] » Thanks for that. Um

[20:01] » I and I guess I'm hearkening to what the

[20:03] um public comment said. Mhm.

[20:05] » We below to the south of this, we've got

[20:08] this beautiful culde-sac that that

[20:10] somebody had to build and yet the only

[20:14] access that it provides is to the to the

[20:17] Nike area of the outlet.

[20:20] Why didn't the the

[20:22] landowner developer seek to use that as

[20:26] access to the property instead of I know

[20:28] there's an apron already built to the

[20:29] property, but it it seems to me quite a

[20:32] waste of a perfectly good culde-sac and

[20:35] that would certainly alleviate maybe

[20:36] some of the traffic queuing problems so

[20:38] close to another intersection. Is there

[20:40] can somebody kind of talk to that a

[20:42] little bit?

[20:43] » Um

[20:45] the project site on that apron that you

[20:48] were just mentioning there will be a

[20:51] road that is in here but um I believe

[20:55] that Rick would probably be a little

[20:57] better suited to discuss those options.

[21:01] » I have an additional question regarding

[21:04] the traffic studies that have been done.

[21:07] First of all, were the traffic studies

[21:09] also done for the previous applications,

[21:11] the I think it was a service station and

[21:13] and aa um building and was any

[21:16] consideration given to a a free turn

[21:20] free right turn from Camrio Center Drive

[21:24] uh onto Ventura Boulevard. I I I know

[21:28] that that that would help relieve the

[21:31] the traffic congestion at that

[21:34] intersection. Um, but it's only for the

[21:37] limited time that's the the holiday

[21:40] season. The rest of the year it's,

[21:42] you know, I don't know if that gets

[21:45] incorporated into the traffic analysis,

[21:47] but I was wondering if had if a free

[21:50] turn had been considered for that

[21:52] location.

[21:54] » A free turn from which direction? I'm

[21:56] sorry.

[21:56] » Yeah. So, free right turn from Camrio

[21:59] Center Drive to Ventura Boulevard.

[22:03] uh just just at the corner to make the

[22:05] right turn going northbound.

[22:07] » The right turn doesn't need to stop

[22:09] because that that's where a lot of the

[22:10] congestion seems to happen.

[22:12] » Well, again limited to the holiday

[22:15] season,

[22:16] » Right? Uh yeah, thanks for the question.

[22:20] um that location has is all signalized

[22:23] now. And I think that uh you know when

[22:26] you put in a free ride like that then

[22:27] that causes additional concerns uh

[22:30] because then you have the possibility of

[22:32] people uh going uh eastbound and

[22:36] possibly running into the people that

[22:38] are making that right turn. It would

[22:40] just uh we didn't look into that for

[22:42] this particular case. Uh that wasn't one

[22:44] of the things that uh was looked at for

[22:46] the traffic impact study. Uh, and as far

[22:49] as other studies, uh, those are a little

[22:52] bit older and those kind of predate

[22:53] myself, so I haven't seen any of those

[22:55] studies in the past or from the past.

[22:58] Um, but to to go back to the

[23:03] question as to why the

[23:06] uh, location going into the culde-sac

[23:09] wasn't uh, suggested. uh that would

[23:12] probably be need to go back to the

[23:13] designers and u to see how they why they

[23:17] wanted to go that way. Uh the reason I

[23:19] would think that they probably did it

[23:21] was probably because this is probably

[23:24] the the first entrance and it's a little

[23:25] easier to see where the entryway to the

[23:27] loca to the uh quick quack and the rove

[23:31] would be

[23:33] um using the other entryway you would

[23:36] have to kind of drive all the way down

[23:37] to the back and around and that would be

[23:39] another issue. Uh the other thing would

[23:42] that I'm would assume is that that would

[23:46] shrink down the size of the Quickquack

[23:49] uh location. And so if it's shrunk down

[23:52] then that may cause additional issues

[23:54] for the queuing inside.

[23:56] » So we want they want to keep that as

[23:58] large as possible. This way it doesn't

[24:00] spill back out uh onto the roadway.

[24:04] But uh to kind of go back to the

[24:06] original question, uh that was

[24:08] submitted. Um you know, we understand

[24:11] that the concern about the queueing of

[24:13] Ventura Boulevard and the traffic study

[24:15] shows uh no major adverse impacts. Uh

[24:18] however, because this is a constrained

[24:19] location, a potential queueing will be

[24:22] addressed through the final striping. Uh

[24:25] and um final striping and signing review

[24:28] as required by the conditions of

[24:30] occupancy. Uh, so some of the things

[24:32] we're thinking about was possibly like a

[24:34] keep clear at the intersection so that

[24:36] when people are coming down to make a

[24:37] left, they can make a left turn into the

[24:39] location directly. So if there's a lot

[24:41] of traffic and is backed up to that

[24:43] point, that'll keep clear and that'll

[24:44] keep the traffic that's going southbound

[24:46] and they can make that left turn into uh

[24:49] the driveway. Uh, and then possibly

[24:52] we're going to see if we can squeeze in

[24:53] a little bit of a left turn pocket in

[24:55] there also to try to adjust that.

[24:58] Um they also mentioned new traffic

[25:01] signals. That was one of the questions

[25:02] that was on there. Uh just because of

[25:05] the number of you know it's too close to

[25:06] the other intersection as it is and the

[25:08] other signals. So we wouldn't be able to

[25:09] put that uh that in there. And same

[25:12] thing with stop signs. It's just too

[25:14] close for that type of situation. Uh but

[25:17] we might be able to go through and

[25:18] fine-tune the signal that's out there

[25:20] now. we can try to manage that so that

[25:22] we can uh adjust for the number of

[25:24] turning vehicles that we would have uh

[25:26] driving down the um going south and then

[25:30] um

[25:32] I think we uh discussed the access

[25:35] points on Ventura Boulevard. Well,

[25:37] Ventura Boulevard uh sort of the same

[25:40] situation uh because of what we've got

[25:43] like if you're try to find another

[25:45] location to make an access point coming

[25:47] off of Ventur Boulevard first. It's a 45

[25:49] mile an hour north street and we already

[25:52] have enough entryways on Ventura

[25:55] Boulevard as it is and this uh would

[25:57] become cause some issues because they've

[26:00] got their equipment on the east side of

[26:02] the street there or east side of the

[26:04] project and that would cause some

[26:06] additional uh issues trying to get in

[26:08] and out of there and it's just kind of

[26:10] shifting the problem around.

[26:12] » Yeah. Um, so,

[26:15] um, and and as I mentioned earlier, I

[26:18] think for the quick whack, it might

[26:19] cause those other issues if they were to

[26:21] come in from Hughes. So,

[26:23] » Thank you. Appreciate that. And I I know

[26:25] that with the outlets being a major

[26:26] economic driver that the city is very

[26:28] keen to um concerns and issues in the

[26:31] area. So, I have no doubt that you guys

[26:32] will be watching it. So, I I appreciate

[26:34] your comments in the fact that you were

[26:36] already thinking about um mitigation

[26:38] efforts uh however slight. So, um, your

[26:41] answer gives me great, um, confidence.

[26:43] Thank you.

[26:44] » Thank you,

[26:48] » Commissioner Murphy.

[26:49] » Yes, I I appreciate your your response

[26:52] as well. Um, you mentioned, I think,

[26:54] three items. Signal phasing,

[26:57] striping, and left possibly squeezing in

[27:00] a left turn lane. Were you on the left

[27:02] turning lane? Were you referring to

[27:03] Camrio

[27:05] Center Drive to access these projects?

[27:08] Yes, that' be uh Cam Center Drive. Uh we

[27:11] would

[27:13] we would really need to I I was trying

[27:15] to draw it out a little earlier to see

[27:17] how how it would fit. We might be able

[27:19] to fit like a a twocar left turn pocket

[27:22] in there. We may need to reduce the

[27:24] existing by a few feet, but it'll be

[27:27] pretty close. But but that's the thing

[27:28] that so when they submit that we'll take

[27:30] a look at that striping plan and see

[27:32] what we can do and and try to maximize

[27:35] uh that queuing areas to turn into that

[27:38] driveway.

[27:39] » I see. And will that be their striping

[27:41] plan or just that the city working with

[27:43] the applicant to

[27:44] » It's part of the conditions that they

[27:46] submit that to us and then we'll review

[27:48] it and then we can modify as needed.

[27:51] » All right. Thank you. That's great.

[27:53] » Sure.

[27:55] » Okay. Seeing no further questions, uh,

[27:57] I'll open it up to the, um, public. Do

[28:00] any community members have, um, any

[28:02] comments to share with the commission,

[28:05] including the applicant?

[28:09] Okay, seeing none, um, we'll close the

[28:11] public hearing and this item's open for

[28:14] discussion.

[28:17] Um,

[28:19] I didn't

[28:21] really have um, any too much as far as

[28:24] discussions. Um, and one thing I did

[28:26] notice, um, on that culde-sac, because I

[28:30] parked right on that culde-sac to look

[28:32] at the lot, there was a gate going in to

[28:34] the road that runs behind or down to the

[28:36] motel and along the back of the mobile

[28:39] home park.

[28:40] » So, I don't know if that has something

[28:42] to do with, you know, a the ability to

[28:44] use that culde-sac for, you know,

[28:46] getting in and out.

[28:51] » So,

[28:52] » Any other comments? No other comments.

[28:55] » Okay. And do we have an architectural

[28:56] review report?

[28:57] » Um, we do have an architectural review.

[29:00] We did look at it. We really like the

[29:02] design. Um, we did I had some

[29:06] discussions or I had a concern and we

[29:08] had some discussions on the color tones.

[29:11] Um, that maybe in the future they might

[29:14] consider going more towards a taupe or

[29:17] gray to fit in more with the colors

[29:19] around. But um applicants did state that

[29:22] this was like their standard color for

[29:24] that company. Um but it is totally

[29:27] different than anything in the area. So

[29:31] our recommendation is that we are

[29:33] approving it but hoping that in the

[29:35] future they can have some discussions on

[29:37] the color.

[29:40] » And I think the applicant mentioned that

[29:43] they're fairly locked into those colors.

[29:46] And correct me if I'm wrong, but yeah.

[29:48] Um we we did talk about instead of the

[29:51] darker the the grays um the term grayge

[29:55] came up combination of of gray and beige

[29:59] obviously.

[30:00] » Um um so we would again

[30:04] » Encourage some reconsideration along

[30:06] those lines but it's it's not a deal

[30:08] breaker for us. Thank you.

[30:11] » Any questions for the architecture

[30:13] review committee? I did have comment.

[30:15] Staff said um regarding the public art

[30:17] requirement and that that the what was

[30:20] provided was kind of just generally

[30:22] represented and that it would be brought

[30:24] back and staff would approve that. Is

[30:26] that did I hear that correctly? And is

[30:28] that I thought hearkening back to to

[30:31] past ones, it was the architectural

[30:33] committee that sort of put the final on

[30:35] the on the actual art or at least the a

[30:38] pretty close rendering. So I'm wondering

[30:40] if there was a change there.

[30:41] » Uh you would be correct. it would come

[30:43] back to planning commission for

[30:45] approval.

[30:45] » I I

[30:46] » I think I may have been a little

[30:47] confusing when I said my

[30:48] » Hearing aids don't work. So,

[30:50] » Thank you.

[30:51] » Yeah,

[30:51] » That was my only question. Thank you.

[30:53] » Yes, we do expect this to come back when

[30:55] they get to I believe it was said the

[30:57] second phase for the building.

[31:00] » Thank you.

[31:00] » So, okay, makes sense. Great. Thank you.

[31:03] » Correct.

[31:04] » I just had a question. I know it's near

[31:05] the freeway, so it's within the heritage

[31:07] zone. Did the architectural review

[31:09] committee compare that to what the

[31:11] heritage zone requirements are?

[31:13] » Yeah, we did look as as far as they they

[31:15] put in the arches, they put in grow

[31:17] work, they put in some things to even

[31:19] though it does have a more modern look

[31:20] to it. Mhm.

[31:22] » Um they did put in some touches that

[31:24] bring it into uh code for meeting those

[31:28] designs

[31:29] » Because the architectural review

[31:30] committee I don't think requires

[31:31] necessarily the Spanish style but it

[31:35] » Requires just an enhancement because

[31:36] it's in the visual corridor as we

[31:38] » Right

[31:39] » Pass through Camrio.

[31:40] » Yeah. So it it I mean the heritage, you

[31:42] know, does have specific

[31:44] architectural designs that it has to be

[31:47] in line with.

[31:48] » And I know when I first looked at it, it

[31:50] looked really like more modern than

[31:53] Spanish Mediter Medit Mediterranean um

[31:57] or the things on the list. But yet by

[32:01] the time they did go to the to um put in

[32:04] the arches and soften it or put in the

[32:07] different characteristics going around

[32:08] the building that kind of brings it into

[32:12] um that category

[32:14] » And we do have to look at looking at

[32:15] maybe modernizing the characteristics a

[32:19] little bit

[32:20] » You know at times. So

[32:22] » Okay thank you. you know, and on the

[32:24] color, we did we did acknowledge that

[32:26] there are more grays going in like in

[32:28] the um industrial areas and different

[32:31] areas of construction along the freeway

[32:34] area or even off of the freeway area. Um

[32:37] but yet when you drive around the

[32:39] outlets, it's not, you know, very

[32:42] predominant there.

[32:44] » Thank you.

[32:45] » So,

[32:48] » Okay, hearing no further discussion. Is

[32:50] there a motion on this item?

[32:55] You'll make a motion for approval.

[32:58] » I'll second.

[33:00] » Can you please call for a vote?

[33:03] » Commissioner Vanderm,

[33:05] » Yes.

[33:06] » Commissioner Murphy,

[33:07] » Yes.

[33:08] » Commissioner Edsil,

[33:09] » Yes.

[33:10] » Vice Chair Davidson,

[33:11] » Yes.

[33:12] » Chair Leone,

[33:13] » Yes.

[33:15] » Okay. And the motion passes. And the the

[33:17] next item on the agenda is related to

[33:20] the one we just heard, item D. with um C

[33:22] CPD259,

[33:24] the quick quack car wash, uh which will

[33:27] also begin with the staff presentation.

[33:29] » Thank you, Chair Leone. Uh this item

[33:31] will be presented again by associate

[33:34] planner Serena Gonzalez.

[33:36] » Yeah, apologies if anything sounds

[33:38] repetitive. It's a lot of the same

[33:40] information. Uh so this one will be for

[33:43] CPD 259 at Quickquack Car Wash. Um this

[33:48] is a request made by Don Shiveley um on

[33:52] behalf of Quickquack to construct a

[33:54] 3,588

[33:56] square foot car wash on 59,810

[34:01] square ft of a vacant 2.79 acre lot

[34:04] located at the corner of Ventura

[34:06] Boulevard and Camaro Center Drive. The

[34:09] project site has a general plan

[34:10] designation of commercial and zoning

[34:13] designation of commercial planned

[34:15] development.

[34:16] To the north of the site will be the

[34:19] Rove project as previously discussed as

[34:21] well as Ventura Boulevard. To the east,

[34:25] that motel and then the mobile home park

[34:28] to the south um the portion of the

[34:32] outlets and then also the other portion

[34:34] of the outlets to the west.

[34:37] the site vacant as we have discovered.

[34:41] Um it had those two previous projects

[34:44] for the automobile repair center and the

[34:47] AAA building approved, never

[34:49] constructed.

[34:50] Um

[34:52] here you can see the site plan. Um cars

[34:56] will come in off of Camaro Center Drive.

[34:59] um go in through this long driveway that

[35:02] has about 5,000 square feet of queuing

[35:05] area with a double lane. Um that greatly

[35:09] exceeds their requirement for queuing.

[35:11] Um they are only required about 2,000

[35:13] square ft. Um as their uh peak

[35:16] operational number is 41 cars per hour.

[35:19] Um, so hopefully that will uh prevent

[35:23] any cars from queuing into Camaro Center

[35:26] Drive so we don't have any um traffic

[35:28] back up from the project specifically.

[35:31] Um,

[35:33] sorry.

[35:35] The project also um proposes three

[35:40] parking spaces for employees which is

[35:42] compliant with code stating that uh

[35:45] there is one spot required per employee

[35:49] um at the largest amount of um employees

[35:53] required per shift. Um, there will also

[35:55] be 10 spaces as you can see here and

[35:58] here that will be for uh cars that are

[36:02] going to vacuum and utilize those vacuum

[36:05] and um other cleaning products that they

[36:08] have for the insides of the car post

[36:10] coming out of the car wash. Um the car

[36:12] wash you exit after going through the

[36:16] tunnel and then through that area here

[36:18] for vacuuming onto this middle road

[36:22] right here. Um this area as I mentioned

[36:24] before um there is a loading zone. So

[36:28] there will be a little loading zone

[36:29] there that's shared between the two

[36:30] projects. Um and then their trash

[36:33] enclosure for this project is right

[36:35] here. Um when the cars exit, they'll go

[36:38] past here and back out onto Camo Center

[36:40] Drive.

[36:44] Here you can see um this is the

[36:50] sorry north and south elevation. You can

[36:53] see that they included some stone veneer

[36:56] along the bottom and then up the sides

[36:58] of the building. Here there's some

[37:00] different massing to break up the

[37:02] elevation and um different accents on

[37:05] the windows and along the parapit roof

[37:09] line um in order to add some more visual

[37:12] interest to the building. Those same

[37:14] types of architectural features can be

[37:17] seen throughout that south

[37:20] um elevation. And then here you can see

[37:23] both the entrance to the tunnel and the

[37:25] exit. Um there will be some signage that

[37:28] community development will review and

[37:30] approve at a later time. Um and you can

[37:33] see here that there is this beigy orange

[37:37] color that is used um that ties in well

[37:39] with the earth tone requirement of the

[37:42] heritage zone. Um, here's a better kind

[37:45] of view of the materials being used. You

[37:47] can see the different stone in the stone

[37:49] veneer, the stucco for the walls, and

[37:52] then those different accent colors

[37:54] along. Um,

[37:58] oh, I guess I didn't include, and I

[38:01] showed this in the architectural review,

[38:02] I forgot to put in the canopies, but um,

[38:05] there will also be canopies that you can

[38:06] see on the site plan here. Um those

[38:11] canopies will be of

[38:15] um the more brown color and they will

[38:17] also have um trash cans throughout that

[38:20] are disguised in a little orange ball.

[38:22] So that way um you can't really see it

[38:24] from anywhere except for right under

[38:26] those canopies.

[38:29] Um,

[38:32] and this is going to sound probably

[38:33] exactly like the last presentation, but

[38:36] uh, Parker Environmental prepared a

[38:38] single class 32 um, categorical

[38:40] exemption report. Um,

[38:43] and this report was for both projects.

[38:47] The combined analysis confirmed that

[38:49] neither project triggers any exceptions

[38:51] to the exemption. and there are no

[38:53] unusual circumstances, cumulative

[38:55] impacts or significant effects related

[38:57] to traffic, air quality, noise or

[38:59] biological resources. The project is

[39:02] fully served by existing infrastructure.

[39:04] There are no sensitive habitats um and

[39:07] air quality was a key consideration. Um

[39:10] there they will be below Ventura

[39:12] County's threshold of 25 lbs per day of

[39:16] um nitrogen oxides at around 22 pounds

[39:20] per day. As I mentioned before, it's

[39:22] really important to keep note that that

[39:24] is a countywide project um threshold,

[39:29] not the project specific. So,

[39:32] it would really need to be all projects

[39:34] in the county to really make a huge

[39:36] impact on neighboring residential uses

[39:39] um and just overall air quality.

[39:42] Um there was also, as mentioned before,

[39:45] um a noise study that was done. The

[39:50] noise study was done for both sites. So,

[39:53] the um project will only put out about

[39:56] 49 dB during the day and 38 at night um

[40:00] which is below the city's limits.

[40:06] Staff recommends that the commission

[40:08] find the project qualifies for a class

[40:10] 32 categorical exemption pursuant to

[40:13] section 15332 of the California

[40:15] Environmental Quality Act guidelines and

[40:18] that they adopt a resolution approving

[40:20] CBD 259 subject to the recommended

[40:22] conditions of approval. And that's it

[40:25] for this one. Thank you.

[40:28] » Great. Thank you. Um any questions for

[40:31] the staff? I don't

[40:35] » I don't Commissioner Murphy, your turn.

[40:38] » I just have one. Um, this has to do with

[40:41] the entry for the project, which is the

[40:43] entry for both projects. Will the

[40:46] striping plan

[40:49] um have a prohibitive bar or a signage

[40:54] that encourages folks to not block the

[40:59] entryway or the intersection?

[41:02] um as especially during the holiday

[41:05] season.

[41:08] » Uh thank you, Commissioner Murphy. Yes.

[41:10] Uh we we can go ahead and look at that

[41:13] and uh we when we look at the striping

[41:15] plan, we can add that in there. And

[41:19] during the holidays, we can make those

[41:22] type of changes. And as things go and we

[41:25] we start to see these type of things

[41:27] happen, we can make modifications as

[41:29] needed. Add additional signage and and

[41:32] other striping changes if we need to.

[41:35] » That sounds good. See what's working as

[41:36] it as it goes.

[41:37] » Exactly. We'll get a better idea of how

[41:39] everything's operating.

[41:42] » All right. Thank you. That's it for me.

[41:47] » Is it called quick quack? Okay.

[41:49] Quickquack. Is that a chain of of um

[41:53] » Yes, it is.

[41:54] » Okay.

[41:54] » Yeah.

[41:55] » Do we know what their logo looks like? I

[41:56] know that might seem a little silly, but

[41:57] is are we talking like a 75 ft duck or

[42:00] are we talking a

[42:02] » Um you know what what's going to be

[42:04] emlazed on these buildings?

[42:06] » It will not be a 75 foot duck. We've

[42:07] talked to them about it already. Okay,

[42:09] good. It will look like normal signage.

[42:12] It will look like a duck, but it won't

[42:14] be anything egregious, so don't worry.

[42:16] » No, it's good. It's just that whole

[42:18] area, especially with the development of

[42:20] the convention center that's going on,

[42:21] it's been very thoughtfully done. The

[42:23] tones are nice. The signage is is kind

[42:25] of demure. And so I just when you hear

[42:28] Quick Quack, that's great. It's catchy.

[42:30] And I and I love the, you know, I love

[42:32] it. But um I just would hope that we

[42:34] don't suddenly have a thumb sticking out

[42:36] of

[42:38] I think everybody hears where I'm going.

[42:40] » Don't worry. It it will not be a giant

[42:42] duck sticking out. I have seen other

[42:44] cookwacks. I was in Utah in October. Um,

[42:47] some of the other ones are a little bit

[42:49] more brightly decorated. Um, but we did

[42:52] our best to make sure that this one fit

[42:54] within the heritage zone and didn't

[42:55] really stand out.

[42:56] » Thank you.

[42:58] » Is is there a rendering of this duck

[43:00] that we can see or is this part of the

[43:02] architecture review committee?

[43:04] » Um, we do not have one readily available

[43:07] right now. Um, I believe in a previous

[43:10] submitt we did have one, but I could

[43:14] email it to you at another time if you

[43:15] wanted to take a look.

[43:17] » I would be interested actually. Thank

[43:18] you.

[43:18] » Yeah.

[43:22] » Nothing else,

[43:23] » Commissioner. Okay. I don't have any

[43:26] questions either. So, this is a time for

[43:28] any committee members who would like to

[43:29] speak to this item to come forward.

[43:35] We received one public comment from

[43:37] Steve Deo.

[43:43] » Mr. Deo, please state your full name.

[43:45] Um, for the record, you have three

[43:47] minutes to speak.

[43:48] » Good evening, commissioners. My name is

[43:50] Steve Duboce. I'm a me resident of

[43:52] Camrio for almost 10 years.

[43:56] Um, with regards to

[43:59] the Quickquack, um, a quick count shows

[44:03] we have already way more than a half a

[44:05] dozen car washes in Camaro.

[44:08] Um, I know the newest one is over on

[44:10] Daily Drive. I've used it myself a

[44:12] couple of times. It's never full. I've

[44:16] never driven by there and seen cars

[44:18] queued outside of that lot or even full

[44:21] up to the road.

[44:24] My math might be a little bit off, but I

[44:26] believe California has been in drought

[44:28] conditions for at least 12 out of the

[44:30] last 15 years. Why are we approving

[44:32] another high water use project when

[44:35] there's the area is already more than

[44:38] well enough served by existing

[44:41] um

[44:42] commercial assets.

[44:45] Um,

[44:46] I I don't know if this is the first time

[44:48] you've heard this project or not, but

[44:51] not none of you asked any questions

[44:53] about the water use. Where's the water

[44:56] coming from? Are they pumping it out of

[44:57] the aquifer? Are they piping it in?

[45:00] What are they going to do with the

[45:01] chemical laden water that's left over?

[45:04] Is it going to be re reused, recycled to

[45:07] be used again? Is it just being dumped?

[45:10] I'm sure there are regulations governing

[45:12] cleaning it up depending on where it's

[45:14] going to go. And again, I don't know if

[45:17] you heard this project before, but I'm

[45:19] I'm surprised that none of these

[45:20] questions were asked. Um,

[45:23] there was a noise study done. Was there

[45:26] a water use study done? How much water

[45:29] is this thing going to use?

[45:31] I really strongly urge you to deny this

[45:34] use

[45:35] in California. We don't need more high

[45:38] water uses like a car wash. There's

[45:40] plenty already available. Thank you very

[45:43] much.

[45:45] » Thank you. Any other members of the

[45:47] public who would like to address this

[45:48] item?

[45:53] » My name is Don Shiveley. I represent

[45:55] Quickquack in this.

[45:57] » If you haven't already, please fill out

[45:58] a a card after your you complete your

[46:02] comments.

[46:02] » As the applicant, I still need to fill

[46:04] out a card.

[46:06] Oh, no. I'm Oh, I apologize. Okay. No,

[46:09] you do not. Can you please start again?

[46:10] » So, I I'm just here to answer any

[46:13] questions that you may have um

[46:14] concerning our car wash project.

[46:16] » Thank you.

[46:18] » Any questions for the applicant?

[46:20] Commissioner Murphy.

[46:21] » Right. So, the question um had to do

[46:24] with uh signage or anything that you

[46:27] might have on the site that attracts

[46:29] customers to Quickquack

[46:32] uh facility. What what are your

[46:34] intentions along those lines?

[46:35] » I'm glad you asked. It's a 45 ft duck,

[46:38] not a 75 ft duck. Great on there.

[46:41] » Now, our our mascot is a duck. We play

[46:43] on our name, Quick Quack. And uh we have

[46:47] tasteful signage. We have it on 300 um

[46:50] car washes that we have throughout the

[46:52] Western United States. And uh it's

[46:55] signage that we work with the community

[46:57] on. And uh it's our branding,

[47:00] » But it's very tasteful. we put up a

[47:02] rendering or a picture. I'm not sure

[47:04] exactly if it's a

[47:07] » Location. Um, also just for your guys's

[47:11] information, um, we have not reviewed

[47:13] the specific signage. So, it will come

[47:15] in and it will adhere to our signage

[47:17] regulations before we approve it. So, it

[47:20] will not be anything that wouldn't be

[47:23] normally approved.

[47:24] » That's our prototype right there. And so

[47:26] we've softened our prototype colors um

[47:30] and worked with the uh planning staff

[47:32] for the current design.

[47:36] » Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful

[47:37] that that graphic that

[47:42] » Any questions for that.

[47:44] » Yes. Um so

[47:47] um without addressing specifically any

[47:49] public comments um it is my

[47:51] understanding that water conservation

[47:53] especially in in car washes in

[47:55] California are held to a pretty high

[47:57] standard. And it's my understanding that

[47:59] car washes actually tend to use less

[48:02] water than say restaurants and things

[48:04] like that of of a similar size

[48:06] especially with water drops. I know here

[48:08] in town it um they use actually less

[48:10] water than the or forgive me at Denny's

[48:13] I believe that was there prior. Um can

[48:15] you speak to that a little bit? I think

[48:17] it would do the the community well to

[48:19] hear that um

[48:20] » While California does a good job of

[48:22] requiring very strict use of water. It

[48:24] would be nice to sort of refresh our and

[48:26] the the community's understanding of

[48:27] what we might have taken for granted and

[48:29] I I do appreciate the commenters um

[48:31] bringing that and and calling us on

[48:33] that. So thank you.

[48:35] » Sure. I appreciate that. Um the the

[48:37] misconception is is that we leave the

[48:40] water running all day long and that's

[48:41] not the case. If I don't have any

[48:43] customers show up that day because I

[48:45] have too much competition and they're

[48:47] going somewhere else. I don't use any

[48:49] water at all. The only water that would

[48:51] happen would be on the landscaping that

[48:54] you're requiring us to put into it.

[48:55] Otherwise, we don't use any water. What

[48:58] we do do is we conserve water. And what

[49:01] we're doing is we're taking it from your

[49:03] residents that are washing their cars on

[49:05] their driveway. They're running 100

[49:08] gallons of water down the driveway into

[49:10] the storm drains out to the ocean. What

[49:13] we do is we conserve that water. We save

[49:16] it by about 40%. We use about 60 gallons

[49:19] of water and part of that most of that

[49:22] is actually recycled water that we

[49:24] capture from our car wash process. So,

[49:27] we are in the process of recycling that

[49:30] water, reusing it, and using it back on

[49:33] our customers.

[49:35] » Thank you,

[49:38] » Commissioner Murphy.

[49:39] » Go ahead.

[49:40] » I was going to say, so if you're

[49:41] recycling it, then does it go through a

[49:43] filter system on the way around or

[49:45] » Yes, we go through several settling

[49:47] tanks within the that's underground in

[49:49] our facility and it gets recycled, taken

[49:52] out the impurities and it comes back

[49:53] through osmosis into our car wash. Okay.

[50:00] » Yeah, that's great about the the

[50:01] recycling on the wastewater. Another one

[50:04] of Mr. Duboce's concerns.

[50:09] Is it going directly to the sanitary

[50:12] sewer system? The discharge from the

[50:15] site when you're can't recycle it any

[50:17] further. Does it go directly to the

[50:19] sanitary sewer system?

[50:20] » That's correct. we will go back through

[50:22] into the sewer system and it is recycled

[50:25] at that point.

[50:30] » Okay. So, some of the water eventually

[50:32] leaves the the site, right? And so, does

[50:34] that

[50:35] » We can't capture all of it.

[50:36] » Dorm drain, but does that go into this?

[50:39] » Not the storm drain. That'll go into

[50:40] your sewer line.

[50:41] » Okay, that's great. Thank you.

[50:46] » Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.

[50:49] any other member of the public who would

[50:51] like to address this item?

[50:54] I I'll note that we did receive a public

[50:56] comment via um uh email or

[51:00] electronically and this was for the

[51:02] previous item and this item as well

[51:04] regarding uh traffic concerns um and

[51:08] there have been questions and responses

[51:10] to um that effect.

[51:13] Okay. So, um, seeing no further public

[51:15] comments, I now close a public hearing

[51:17] and open it up for discussion.

[51:22] If you want the architectural comments

[51:24] first or after discussions

[51:26] » After discussion. Okay. Thank you.

[51:33] » Uh, no, I have nothing. Thank you.

[51:35] Appreciate it.

[51:38] Yeah, I think that the comments from

[51:41] Cammy Pinsac are are important and it

[51:44] sounds to to me like the city is is on

[51:47] it and that that they will uh in

[51:49] combination with the applicant do what

[51:51] they can to to address the the traffic

[51:56] concerns. um particularly those around

[51:59] the the holiday season and make some

[52:02] possible adjustments to traffic phasing

[52:05] and and and striping and and signing.

[52:07] So,

[52:09] » I appreciate that.

[52:11] » Yeah, I I did enjoy um all the

[52:13] conversations on the traffic control and

[52:16] that I feel they're going to keep an eye

[52:18] on it and change as needed, you know,

[52:20] once it gets into play. And I also like

[52:22] to hear that the water is recycled and

[52:25] going down through into the systems and

[52:27] then it just becomes recycled water to

[52:29] be used again throughout the city. So

[52:31] that sounds satisfactory on both of

[52:34] those issues.

[52:36] » And it's my understanding that the the

[52:38] conditions that were um some of which

[52:41] were outlined

[52:43] for the actual permit that um those can

[52:46] be reviewed at future date. Even if we

[52:48] we approve today, those conditions can

[52:51] be modified to address any further the

[52:54] future concerns.

[52:56] Is that that's correct?

[52:59] » Yes.

[52:59] » Okay.

[53:00] » Thank you.

[53:01] » Okay. Um if there's no further

[53:03] discussion, uh we will now hear from the

[53:05] architectural review committee

[53:07] » And we did review this and uh we are me

[53:10] recommending approval on it. We liked

[53:12] all of the variations on the ins and

[53:14] outs and the roof lines and the

[53:16] different materials used and there is

[53:19] still going to be a question. It's going

[53:21] to have to be watched on the traffic

[53:23] that goes around, but that doesn't have

[53:24] anything to do with the architectural

[53:26] part of it.

[53:27] » So, we um are recommending that that go

[53:30] forward as is.

[53:32] » And you did a question um you did not

[53:35] include in your review a review of the

[53:37] logo itself and

[53:39] » No, we did not

[53:40] » The placement and size. That's right. We

[53:42] did wonder why the art requirement did

[53:46] not exist for this when it did exist for

[53:50] the application next door, the other one

[53:53] that we reviewed tonight. But um this

[53:56] facility will be further away from the

[53:59] major viewsheds of of the streets. Um,

[54:03] and also part of

[54:06] the requirement for the first

[54:07] application that we reviewed was to to

[54:11] um get some some more earth tones, more

[54:14] beiges and yellows and so forth in there

[54:17] to to to help address the concern of it

[54:21] that um those buildings being

[54:24] essentially light and dark gray.

[54:28] » Thank you.

[54:30] Any questions for the committee? And one

[54:32] of the other comments that staff made as

[54:34] far as the art feature was that this

[54:36] building had quite a lot of texture to

[54:39] it and different types of materials and

[54:42] colors that were throughout. So they

[54:44] didn't feel that that also added into

[54:46] not needing an additional art feature.

[54:49] Okay. Thank you.

[54:52] Okay. Is there a motion on this item?

[54:54] » I'll make a motion to approve.

[54:57] » Is there a second?

[55:00] » I'll second.

[55:01] Thank you. And um can you please call

[55:03] for a vote?

[55:04] » Commissioner Vanderm,

[55:06] » Yes.

[55:06] » Commissioner Murphy,

[55:08] » Yes.

[55:08] » Commissioner Edsil,

[55:09] » Yes.

[55:10] » Vice Chair Davidson,

[55:11] » Yes.

[55:12] » Chair Leone,

[55:13] » Yes.

[55:14] » Okay. And the motion passes.

[55:17] Okay. Um and now our next item is a

[55:21] black presentation.

[55:23] » I get to step in now. So, um, at this

[55:26] time of year, each year, we, um, we take

[55:28] a moment to show our appreciation and to

[55:32] celebrate the year that we had with our

[55:33] chair. And, um, this year, it falls to

[55:36] me to be able to, uh, present you with

[55:38] that token of our appreciation. And as I

[55:41] was um thinking about that today, I've I

[55:44] was uh hearkening back to the to the

[55:46] year and um sort of what defined your um

[55:51] assuming the role of chairperson and and

[55:53] it was grace was the word that came to

[55:55] mind. And it was um as I thought about

[55:58] the the moments of of maybe tension in

[56:01] the room and things like that, it was

[56:02] always your your grace and style and

[56:05] kindness that um that always uh I left

[56:08] the room appreciating. And uh you have a

[56:11] way of making uh people on both sides of

[56:13] an argument feel heard and respected and

[56:17] um and and I believe that uh that will

[56:20] be a legacy that um that each of us can

[56:23] take. We're lucky to have a a very good

[56:25] commission that gets along well and I

[56:27] think that you are sort of an exponent

[56:29] at the end of that equation that just

[56:30] makes it that much better. So, um that

[56:33] being said, um I would like to on behalf

[56:36] of everyone u the city of Camaro and my

[56:38] fellow commissioners present you with u

[56:41] a gavvel recognizing your time and uh

[56:45] showing our appreciation for all that

[56:46] you've done.

[56:46] » Thank you. Thank you very much.

[56:48] Appreciate it. Thank you everyone.

[56:54] Um, Vice Chair Davidson, I very much

[56:57] appreciate your kind words. It's um,

[56:59] very thoughtful and this has been this

[57:01] year went by very quickly. Um, and I

[57:05] very much appreciate the opportunity to

[57:07] have served in this position. It's been

[57:09] a privilege and I um, have my my

[57:12] appreciation for the role of the

[57:13] commission. Um, all of your volunteer

[57:16] time as commissioners and the expertise

[57:18] and work of the staff has only grown.

[57:21] Um, and I've it's been a a learning

[57:23] process for me as well. And I've I've

[57:25] also uh really appreciated the role of

[57:27] the community in contributing to our

[57:31] discussions, bringing um opinions and

[57:34] and thoughts and requests to us that add

[57:37] to the richness of our our own

[57:38] deliberations as happened here tonight.

[57:41] So, um again, it's been a privilege and

[57:43] I look forward to continuing to work

[57:45] with you on the commission as I step

[57:47] down from the role.

[57:48] » Thank you.

[57:49] » Thank you.

[57:51] Okay. And so now we get to reorganize

[57:53] the commission. Um, and this consists of

[57:57] a of a process for nominations for the

[58:00] next chair and vice chair. Will the

[58:02] secretary please explain the

[58:04] reorganization process?

[58:06] » Sure. The reorganization of the planning

[58:08] commission includes selecting a new

[58:10] chair, vice chair, and members to serve

[58:14] on the architectural committee.

[58:16] Nominations will be open for the chair

[58:18] and vice chair. If more than one

[58:21] commissioner is nominated, we will vote

[58:23] in the order the nominations were

[58:26] received. Once all nominations are

[58:28] received, Chair Leone will ask for a

[58:31] motion to close nominations and we will

[58:34] proceed to a vote. If multiple

[58:37] commissioners are nominated, we will

[58:39] hold separate votes for each and the

[58:42] commissioner with majority vote will

[58:44] serve and the same process will be

[58:47] followed for vice chair. Anyone who is

[58:50] nominated but does not wish to serve may

[58:53] simply decline the nomination.

[58:56] After the chair is selected, the chair

[58:58] will have the discretion to select

[59:00] members of the commission to serve on

[59:03] the architectural review committee.

[59:06] Um, are there any questions?

[59:10] » Any questions? No questions. Thank you.

[59:12] Okay, we'll proceed with the um office

[59:15] of the chair. Are there any nominations?

[59:18] » Yes. I would like to nominate Rob

[59:20] Davidson, our vice chair, to be

[59:22] chairman.

[59:22] » I'll second.

[59:24] » Right. Any other nominations?

[59:27] » Is we make a motion to close

[59:30] close the nominations?

[59:32] » Is there a second motion to close?

[59:35] Second.

[59:36] » Oh,

[59:38] » Not really.

[59:39] » I'll second.

[59:41] Okay. We have a nomination of vice

[59:43] chair, current vice chair Davidson, uh,

[59:46] for chair. Will you please call for a

[59:48] vote, Secretary?

[59:50] » Commissioner Vanderm,

[59:52] » Yes.

[59:53] » Commissioner Murphy,

[59:54] » Yes.

[59:54] » Commissioner Edso,

[59:56] » Yes.

[59:56] » Vice Chair Davidson,

[59:57] » Why not?

[59:59] » Chair Leone,

[1:00:00] » Yes. And the motion carries. And we now

[1:00:04] have a new chair. Congratulations, Chair

[1:00:06] Davidson.

[1:00:07] » Thank you.

[1:00:12] » Okay, we will now move on to the office

[1:00:14] of vice chair. Are there nominations for

[1:00:17] this position?

[1:00:19] » I'll nominate Director Murphy. Mer

[1:00:22] Murphy.

[1:00:23] » I'll second that nomination.

[1:00:25] » Any other nominations?

[1:00:27] Is there a motion to close?

[1:00:31] » Motion to close. I'll second.

[1:00:34] » Great. All right, let's move forward

[1:00:36] with uh uh Secretary, can you please

[1:00:38] call for a vote?

[1:00:42] » Commissioner Vanderm,

[1:00:43] » Yes.

[1:00:44] » Commissioner Murphy,

[1:00:45] » Why not?

[1:00:46] » Commissioner Edel,

[1:00:47] » Yes.

[1:00:48] » Vice Chair Davidson,

[1:00:49] » Enthusiastically, yes.

[1:00:51] » Chair Leone,

[1:00:52] » Absolutely. Great. And that motion

[1:00:55] carries. And so we have a new Vice Chair

[1:00:57] Murphy. Thank you very much for

[1:00:58] accepting.

[1:01:03] I think you take it from here, don't

[1:01:05] you?

[1:01:05] » Yes. And now we we move chairs, right?

[1:01:08] Like

[1:01:08] » Do we

[1:01:09] » Literally Yes, we literally move chairs,

[1:01:11] I believe. Is that right? Because then

[1:01:13] we proceed with the architecture

[1:01:15] committee which is appointed by the new

[1:01:16] » We can do review committee.

[1:01:19] » Yeah.

[1:01:20] » With the review committee.

[1:01:21] » Oh, we have we still have to do

[1:01:22] architectural review.

[1:01:24] » Okay. But that's selected by the new

[1:01:25] chair.

[1:01:26] » Oh, okay.

[1:01:28] » So that's you.

[1:01:29] » Okay. I'll just stay here and we'll

[1:01:31] we'll move.

[1:01:32] » Yes. Okay.

[1:01:33] » Our new chair will

[1:01:34] » I'll assume the

[1:01:36] » Yeah the the selection of

[1:01:40] » The selection of the architectural

[1:01:41] review committee is by the new chair.

[1:01:43] » Okay. So is uh do we have any members

[1:01:45] who first before um any selection do we

[1:01:48] have anyone who is um interested in

[1:01:51] volunteering to take on or continue in

[1:01:54] the role on the architectural committee?

[1:01:58] » Okay. Thank you for that and I would uh

[1:02:00] I would absolutely support your

[1:02:01] remaining on it. So, thank you for that.

[1:02:03] Okay, there's one

[1:02:04] » And I guess I can do it. Yeah.

[1:02:06] » Okay, perfect. So, it sounds like we

[1:02:08] have two architectural um committee

[1:02:10] members selected and um so Commissioner

[1:02:14] Vanderm and uh Commissioner Edsil will

[1:02:17] make up that committee.

[1:02:20] » Thank you.

[1:02:22] » Okay. And the next um item is commission

[1:02:25] uh director report.

[1:02:28] » Uh the only item I had for you tonight

[1:02:31] is just a reminder that we have the

[1:02:33] planning commissioners academy coming up

[1:02:35] on March 11th through March 13th in

[1:02:39] Anaheim. So our admin team will be

[1:02:42] coordinating with each of you um to

[1:02:45] arrange your registration and um travel

[1:02:50] for that. And then right after this

[1:02:52] meeting is adjourned, we do have

[1:02:55] refreshments uh just to uh say thank

[1:02:58] you, Chair Leone, for your service and

[1:03:00] then bringing on Chair Davidson as our

[1:03:04] new chair.

[1:03:05] » Very good.

[1:03:06] » Great. Thank you.

[1:03:07] » Thank you.

[1:03:09] » Okay. And the next is commission

[1:03:11] comments.

[1:03:14] Well, I want to thank you for a year of

[1:03:17] great service and lots of ideas and a

[1:03:19] lot of knowledge that passed through

[1:03:21] while you were here as chair.

[1:03:23] » Okay.

[1:03:24] » And uh looking forward to Rob filling

[1:03:25] that seat next year or this year, I'm

[1:03:28] sorry.

[1:03:30] And um just I've enjoyed working with

[1:03:32] all of you so much. You know, we're on

[1:03:34] here and I'm always learning something

[1:03:36] new.

[1:03:37] » And then with staff, I mean, I can't do

[1:03:40] without you at all. So,

[1:03:42] » Always learning and always getting all

[1:03:44] the information that I need and I

[1:03:45] appreciate that.

[1:03:49] I'd like to add to the the term grace

[1:03:52] that Commissioner Davidson associated

[1:03:54] with you and and the way I saw it

[1:03:56] applied during the year was we became I

[1:04:01] thought better interacted with the folks

[1:04:03] that come up here and voice their

[1:04:06] concerns about applications rather than

[1:04:09] say thank you for your comments and and

[1:04:11] not do anything about it. It seems like

[1:04:14] you fostered a a more helpful group. And

[1:04:18] by group, I mean not just the

[1:04:20] commissioners, but legal counsel and

[1:04:23] staff to um think about and discuss and

[1:04:28] sometimes make changes to um the

[1:04:31] application in the form of uh conditions

[1:04:34] of approval or further um further study

[1:04:38] input. And I saw you making um that

[1:04:41] happen more than before. and you did

[1:04:43] that with with grace and just being nice

[1:04:47] and fair to to the people who come to

[1:04:50] these meetings. So, I want to thank you

[1:04:52] for that.

[1:04:53] » Thank you, Commissioner Murphy. Vice

[1:04:55] Chair Murphy,

[1:04:57] » And I I echo those comments, too. And

[1:05:00] you started over at the library and so

[1:05:02] we got to move into the new building,

[1:05:04] but um

[1:05:06] seemed like this wasn't your first time.

[1:05:09] you seem like you were a seasoned pro

[1:05:12] and you know engaged the public and I

[1:05:16] think a lot of times the smartest one in

[1:05:17] the room on your you know your

[1:05:20] background and the the detail you have

[1:05:22] on the different items that came before

[1:05:24] us and I enjoy working with all the

[1:05:26] commissioners as well.

[1:05:28] » So

[1:05:29] » Thank you. Well that's all very very

[1:05:31] gracious and kind of you to say I

[1:05:32] appreciate it. as I was re reflecting on

[1:05:34] I made a little a short list of some of

[1:05:36] the many items that we uh reviewed and

[1:05:40] made decisions on and it um really

[1:05:42] varied. So from zoning ordinance

[1:05:44] amendments including those pertaining to

[1:05:47] offsale alcoh al alcohol establishments

[1:05:49] to uh we learned about tasting licenses

[1:05:52] with the the recent Albertson's license.

[1:05:55] » Um we oversaw and re reviewed projects

[1:05:58] increasing the number of housing units

[1:06:00] in the city which we usually do. Uh we

[1:06:02] reviewed a cup to allow for the use of

[1:06:05] an indoor golf practice facility. Um we

[1:06:08] reviewed um changes to the general plan

[1:06:11] safety element and during that update

[1:06:13] and then also reviewed and recommended

[1:06:15] to the city council approval of the

[1:06:17] first city climate action plan. So it

[1:06:19] was it was pretty broad um diverse the

[1:06:22] topics that we had the the pleasure of

[1:06:24] um engaging on this year. So, um, again,

[1:06:27] really appreciate all of your work and

[1:06:29] commitment to our city and also to again

[1:06:32] to our staff. So, um, and, uh, Chair

[1:06:35] Davidson, I wish you a very, uh,

[1:06:38] successful, um, year and thank you for

[1:06:41] stepping up to to serve in the new role.

[1:06:43] » Thank you.

[1:06:45] » Okay, if there are no other comments and

[1:06:47] we will adjourn.

Camarillo Planning Commission - 1/06/2026

Transcript