Council upholds Planning Commission approval of Trade Desk renovation despite conservancy appeal

The San Buenaventura City Council voted unanimously to deny an appeal of the Trade Desk renovation at 507 East Main Street, upholding the Planning Commission's December approval.

Planning Manager Shana Farley summarized the project and staff recommendation, telling the council the application sought a coastal development permit, major design review, an exception to the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) requirement for a principal entrance facing Main Street, and a lot merger. Staff said the project qualifies for a CEQA categorical exemption for existing facilities under CEQA section 15301 and that peer review found the building not eligible for landmark designation, although it had been identified as a contributor to a potential historic district. Because of proximity to the San Buenaventura Mission Archaeological District, staff recommended conditions requiring work to stop and archaeologists to be consulted if subsurface resources are discovered.

Stephen Schaefer, president of the San Buenaventura Conservancy for Preservation, argued the core design issue was loss of a Main Street front entry. He said the DTSP’s frontage rules are central to maintaining downtown character and that allowing this project to place its main entry toward the parking lot would set a harmful precedent. Schaefer disputed the applicant’s security rationale and urged council to require a visible Main Street door to preserve pedestrian interest.

The applicant’s architect, Ad Caday, and Trade Desk representatives described design tradeoffs that led them to locate the primary secure entry on the north (parking) side: site topography, ADA access, and an internal security vestibule the company said is needed for protection of employees and corporate data. Caday emphasized facade activation, larger windows on the Main Street elevation, a landscaped frontage, and a private rooftop deck for staff. Trade Desk representative Michael Prabu said the building will be used as an executive campus and that many visitors would access the site from the California Street/parking side.

Council questions focused on whether the auxiliary door proposed on Main Street would read as a legitimate entrance, the extent to which the DTSP allows exceptions and warrants, potential archaeological impacts given earlier disturbance on the site, and how the security justification relates to Sarbanes‑Oxley/internal controls (cited by the applicant).

Council members weighed downtown vitality and historic‑design principles against the applicant’s security and grade/access constraints. Citing the project's likely activation of a long‑vacant building and the design team's outreach, Council Member Duran moved — and the council approved — staff recommendations to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission approval, 7–0.

The council directed staff to proceed under the permit conditions described in the staff report, including archaeological‑monitoring conditions. The decision preserves the planning commission’s findings and maintains the standard review path for any future similar exceptions.

What’s next: the planning approvals remain in place and the applicant may obtain permits and begin work under the conditions adopted by the planning commission and reiterated by council.