[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.