Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Secretary loose. Please take roll call. Good morning, Commissioner Boydston here, Commissioner Kesley here. Commissioner Ayala here. Vice chair. Cushing. Here. Chair. Sandlin here. All right. Please stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The next item is public comments. Secretary Lewis, should we receive any comments on the next item or not included in the agenda? Yes, chair. Chair, we do have one speaker for that. For item number four, her name is Linda Bellamy. Linda, please come over. That's three minutes. Thank you Linda. Thank you. Linda, Linda. Bellamy I live in the Valley Vista tract. I wanted to acknowledge that on February the 19th, 2026, two Ventura County Planning Commissioners fulfilled their responsibilities in recognizing the public safety risk involved with not approving the Ventura Ranch High Density housing project. Unfortunately, the other supervisors and their decision to support the project, in my opinion, was a serious mistake. You cannot compare Somis Ranch to the Ventura Ranch area. Somis ranch has row crops and a high school next to it. Ventura Ranch has vast open,

wide space is right next to a hillside. It's right next to an open canyon, and it also on the south side has the oil fields and the next property, maybe over, has a vast majority of oak trees. So there's completely different terrain around those two, around those around that property. The neighborhood itself lies in a high fire severity zone, which you've all heard, and we know that. And we know that the Board of Supervisors in April 2022 stated they do not want and they prohibit farmworker housing from being in very high fire severity zones. The county fire department now listed that property, which used to be the limit orchard in a high fire severity zone. So I'm just wondering how can you keep the integrity of the Ventura County ordinances and go against that ordinance of that property being developed? I worked with the AG Commissioner's office for 36 years under four different agricultural commissioners. The Agricultural Commissioners are here to protect and preserve agriculture. You cannot protect and preserve agriculture by developing on all of the agricultural land. As you know, the highway 101 corridor is completely filling up with cotton, new Costco buildings, Amazon buildings and other buildings along that area. And this Ventura Ranch property would have been a perfect place to have specialty crops. It used to be a lemon orchard. They ripped out the developer. I'm sorry, not the developer, but the planner totally ripped out the lemon orchard. Didn't try to even put agriculture in.

He put in basically a cover crop so he can develop on that land. And pretty soon all of Telegraph Road, all of the avocados along Telegraph Road, they're going to disappear because there's plans to put housing all along Telegraph Road as well. So I just, you know, I, I think that with my experience of working with in AG for the past 36 years, I've seen a lot of development on agricultural land, and we're losing it, you know, and here today is Earth Day. Thank you. Linda, that was three minutes. We appreciate your time and your comments. Well, anyway, thank you to. The next item is the approval of the minutes for February 19th, 2026. And I believe we have some updates from staff in regards to the minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Planning Commission and Commissioner Sandlin I would we we identified and we wanted to bring to your attention and secure your feedback for clarification on one item from your three minutes. Item B from the minutes is where you it's the categories. Planning Commission may introduce additional items. And there was a proposal that the Planning Commission draft a Caltrans requested study of the on ramp and off ramp intersection at Camarillo Spring and Stanley Avenue and Canada Larga Road. We wanted to show you some visuals of that area to verify if you indeed meant Stanley Road or perhaps Shell Road. So what we have is an aerial view of Shell Road on the screen. So you can see the the on ramp there. And if you were to go directly east of

that, La Canada is out of the picture. But it's, it's above it. And then Stanley is below it, closer to the west. And if you go ahead and go to a picture of Shell Road, we can look at that on ramp, the Shell Road on ramp, you can see looking from the sorry, let me get my orientation here. This next one. So the project's located on North Ventura Avenue, as you know, and it's approximately 1.5 miles from the city of Ventura. But at the south we it's at the south east corner of Norway Drive and North Ventura Avenue. So what we have is a view from the southbound to the freeway, 101 from Shell Road. And then we also have the southbound to freeway 101 for Stanley Avenue. And if you look at that view, you'll see that that the on ramp there for Shell Road is where they, you know, they could I think that's the entrance or exit. Sorry, but we're just not sure if you meant Shell or Stanley. And so what we wanted to do was provide you with some visuals, because Stanley Road actually is, is shell roads in the middle of Stanley, the Stanley on ramp and off ramp between La Canada and Shell. So we just wanted to to present that information with you and make sure that you did indeed to intend to include Stanley Avenue and versus Shell Road. Great. Is there a way we can include both? Well, I, I suppose, but do you need to you would like to have all three included. Okay. I mean, surrounding the project. Okay. You can see that they would be exiting from. Yeah it's you can you can make you can add that to your amend your minutes to include that. But we did. Yeah. We definitely want to share with you the Shell Road component. Great. We'd like to add all three of those okay

then. Yeah I think you can do that as part of your approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion? Move to approve. I'll make a motion to approve with the addition of Shell Road so that we now have three Shell Road, Stanley and La Canada, along with the other to the camera springs as well. Okay. That's fine. Sounds good. Is there a second to Commissioner Boysen's motion? I'll second that. We have a second, Commissioner Ayala. And Secretary Lewis, would you like to take a vote? Yes, Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner. Kent. Yes, Commissioner. Ayala. Yes, vice chair. Yes. Chair. Sandlin. Yes. Okay. The next item is item six, a case number PL 250095. The applicant is Blue Energy Holdings LLC. The applicant. The project description is the applicant request approval of a variance from the development standards of the Ventura County Non-coastal Zoning Ordinance for the. After the approval of an eight foot high fence along the front, side and rear lot lines, and installation of a vehicle gate within a required setback. The project location is at 11465 Nordo Street in the community of Saticoy, in the unincorporated area of Ventura County. At this time, I'd like to ask each Planning Commissioner to state on the record whether or not he or she has received any oral or written ex-parte communication, or has had any other information to disclose regarding this agenda item that

is not already contained in the record before us on this matter, please disclose the substance of that information only if that information is not contained in the record before us on this matter. Secretary, please take roll call. Commissioner. Commissioner. Boydston. No disclosures. Commissioner Kesley, I have no disclosures. Commissioner Ayala. Nothing to disclose. Vice Chair. Cushing. No disclosure. Chair. Sandlin. No case planner. John Oquendo, please proceed with your presentation. I don't think my microphone is coming through. Okay. Good morning, chair. And members of the Planning Commission. My name is John Oquendo, senior planner with the Ventura County Planning Division's residential permit section. And I'm the case planner for item six A the variance for 11465 Nardo Street under planning case number PL 25 0095. So we do have representatives from Blue Energy Holdings and elevated entitlements representing the project today. And the. Sorry. So the applicant requested approval of a variance from the development standards of the Ventura County Non Coastal Zoning Ordinance for the after approval of a solid eight foot high wood fence along the front, side and rear lot lines, as well as a waiver of the required vehicle gate setback for the property located at 11 465 Nardo Street in Saticoy. The staff's staff's recommendation is that the project be approved subject to

conditions of approval. So before getting started, the URL for the zoom hearing is shown on this slide. So quick reminder for online attendees, members of the public who would like to provide comment on item six a may do so as a speaker via the zoom platform to speak for this item. Comment commenters may raise their hand via the raise hand button in the zoom application, and for those participating by phone, you may press the star key to be queued for excuse me, agenda item six a so I believe you press pound six A in order to queue for this item via phone. So in terms of the format, we'll start with the project location. Project history, project description. And then we'll head on to the standards that we apply to variances and the recommended actions for today. So let's get you oriented. The project is located in the unincorporated area of Ventura County and the community of Saticoy at 11 465 Nardo Street, near the intersection of Nardo Street and West Los Angeles Avenue, also known as State Route 118, the project is located within the sphere of influence of the city of Ventura. So this is an aerial photograph of the subject site showing zoning and the general plan designations, so the property contains an existing 1220 five square foot single family dwelling. No new principal structures are proposed with this request, just the legalization of of the existing fence. The request involves the legalization of of those fencing improvements. The zoning for the property itself is ined, so it's within the Saticoy area plan, and it possesses that IND designation, which is a little bit different

from the the normal industrial classification. So it's an area specific to Saticoy. The. Excuse me, let me go back. So the project is located at the terminus of Campanella Avenue in an area with mixed industrial and residential land uses. To the north of the project site is the Santa Paula Branch railroad line, and just to the north of the tracks is a warehouse and storage yard. Land use. To the east of the project site is the County Watershed Protection District, a flood control channel channel known as the Franklin Wasson Barranca. Part of this request includes encroachment of the property owners. The the applicants fencing, improvements into that right of way area. The Ventura County Public Works Agency has been notified of the project. They did provide conditions of approval related to that aspect of the request. And then beyond the barranca are agricultural lands, and to the south and west of the property are single family dwellings, as you can see, and the surrounding zoning is pretty much the same. So it's it's typically there's a mix of of conforming and non-conforming single family dwellings and industrial uses in the area. So on to the property history and the project description. So as stated previously, the project involves legal, nonconforming land use and structures. The presence of a single family dwelling within the industrial zoning category. The year built date for the home could not be established based on staff's review of the available building records. The building records do show an addition to the home in 1962. Following that date, there are various minor improvement activities

associated with the address, so we have patio permits. Electrical permits. The property also does show a history of of various citations and corrections. Subsequent subsequent corrections related to violations on the property. The most recent violation attached to the property was CV 20 206 32 and CV 20 202 47. So I think the the, the assignment of of two violation numbers is a little bit unusual. I think one of them was done in error, but they based on my review, they both possessed the same noted violations. So the the violation case determined various violations present on the property. Those relevant to the request today is violation number three, which is the construction of an overheight solid, solid wood fence on three sides of the property in violation of the non Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The Old Town Development Code, and the Ventura County Building Code. So that's the construction of a fence without a permit. So based on the height a permit would be required in this case. Additionally, Watershed Protection District cited the property owner for unpermitted placement of the gate and the a portion of the fencing within flood control right of way under watershed notice of violation case EV 2022 007. So in order to correct the violations under both of these these citations, the applicant has elected to apply for the variance to legalize the fence with the applicant's own supporting justifications as to the appropriateness of granting the variance. So if the Planning Commission grants the variance, the applicant will then be required to obtain follow on permits with the planning division in the form of a zoning clearance with building and safety in the form

of a permit for for construction of the fence where the the Building and Safety Department reviews any kind of necessary information to to grant that permit, and then an encroachment permit or a watercourse permit with the county Public works Agency. So on to the project plans. This is just to show you a very quickly the nature of the violation or the the nature of the the exceedance of height limitations for fence and the encroachment of the gate. So the the blue dashed line shows the presence of a eight foot tall solid wood fence in the side and rear property lines. So that's on the left and the upper part of the page to the on the upper part, just to orient you. That would be the that blue line at the top of the page would be the, the location of the, the railroad line or the railroad tracks. To the bottom of the page you have a red dashed line. So that is the presence of an eight foot tall solid wood fence in the front setback. The difference between the exceedance of the height limit in these two areas. So along the side and rear it's two feet exceedance. So that's in those areas. The six foot height fence limitation is established in the Saticoy area plan. And then for the front in the red dashed line area it's limited to three feet. So the exceedance there would be five feet, the green area or the green hatched area is actually the a newer standard that was established relatively recently. So we require a 20 foot vehicle gate setback. That's to prevent vehicle queuing on the public road right of way so that you don't have, you know, when people are opening their gates or waiting for their automatic gates open, queuing on the

street and causing a potential safety issue. So what the variance is requesting today would be a waiver of that requirement. The other portion of the request is the encroachment permit, which is shown as the yellow area there. And then on the right hand side of the page, you have an elevation view of what the fence looks like now. So it is presently in that location. These are the plans that would be submitted to formally legalize it once if, excuse me, if the variance is granted by the Planning Commission today. So again, very, very quickly the variance would legalize an eight foot tall solid wood fence, allow encroachment into the required 20 foot vehicle. Excuse me, 20 foot vehicle setback for the driveway and allow encroachment into the watershed protection protection districts flood control right of way. The property at this point will be continued to be used as residential. So there are actually two separate sets of standards that apply to this property in particular. So because it's located within the old Town Saticoy area, we would when the property comes in, we would apply the standards or the excuse me, the development code standards specific to this Adekoya area plan. So that is the where that's the portion of the code that establishes fence height. However, there's also the standards related to vehicle access gates which also apply to the property. So what we're saying basically is there's two locations for fencing standards that would apply to this property. Normally it's just the for properties within the vanilla,

you know, zoning areas of the county. We would just refer to the the Non-coastal zoning ordinance section reference at the top. So for fence, excuse me for fences, walls and gates. So these are the actual standards that are the subject of the variance today. So on the left hand side of the screen is the Saticoy area plan, which establishes again the three foot front fence height limitation and the six foot height limitation on the side and the rear. And then on the right is the non coastal zoning ordinance section. Again the vanilla code section related to vehicle access gates. So in there it is again a 20 foot vehicle gate setback that's required. And again that's specifically for to prevent, you know, safety issues and to allow for safe opening of those gates when the property is trying to be accessed. So pursuant to to the non coastal zoning Ordinance, variances are adjustments in the regulations and development standards contained in the code. So a waiver of of development standards variances are based upon discretionary decisions and may be granted to allow deviations from ordinance regulations governing such development. Factors like setbacks, heights, building lot coverage, landscaping and walls and fencing so variances may not be granted to authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the property. The sole purpose of a variance is to enable the property owner to make reasonable use of their property in a manner in which other property of like character in the same vicinity and zone can be used. So

variances are also, in this case subject to a public hearing, and may only be granted under special circumstances. So due to the nature of the request, again, because they're seeking a waiver of two feet and five feet in, sorry, excuse me, two feet in the side and the rear and a exceedance of five feet in the front. So again, that solid wood fence going across those lot lines, it would be subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. And your planning Commission is required to make consistency findings under the variance standards. The applicant did provide their own justification or their own consistency analysis, which is attached to the staff report as exhibit seven. Staff also provided our justification or our consistency analysis as exhibit four. With that said, these were the the four special circumstances under the Nico, and they're summarized as follows. So number one is the presence of special circumstances or characteristics applicable to the subject. Property number two is the granting of the variance will not confer a special privilege or create a hardship for other properties in the vicinity. Number three is the strict application of the regulations would result in practical difficulty upon the property. And finally, granting of the variance request is not detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare, and that includes the enjoyment or valuation of neighboring properties. So to quickly summarize the the justification or the consistency analysis, basically, staff claims in the analysis that a waiver of the fencing height limit and setback is necessary in this case due to locational

characteristics. So back to the the orientation or the location of the lot. It's at the dead end of the road. It's located next to a flood control channel and adjacent to railroad tracks. So that's very unique for a property to have sort of a, you know, a triple whammy where they do have other considerations that would be necessary for property owners trying to maintain their property. The other the other justification that we use is that other properties in the vicinity do have high or similar types of fences, so solid fences in the areas we don't make an assessment of the, the, the legality of those fences in those areas. But what we noted when we reviewed is that there's a lot of exceedance of the the three foot front height fence limitation. And we do provide basically our analysis in terms of a radius around the project and various properties that do exceed those standards. And the the third justification is related to the strict application of the standards. And what we state is that security concerns and nuisance consideration, vandalism or securing the property or reducing access to the tracks, or having people walking through the channel to get behind or around the property is a valid security concern and justification for a waiver of the fence height limitation. And then lastly, we state that the granting of the variance would not have an impact upon public health, safety, or general welfare. So just a informational item. We do state that the project is exempt from Sequa under class one and class

three projects. So class one is existing facilities. It applies to the permitting of existing private structures involving negligible, negligible or no expansion of use, and class three applies to accessory structures, including fences. So regarding the recommended actions. So based upon analysis and information provided in the staff report and its exhibits, the Planning Division staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. So we recommend that the Planning Commission certify that they have reviewed and considered the staff report and all exhibits thereto, and has considered all comments received during the public comment process. Find that the project is categorically exempt from Sequa pursuant to sections one, five, 301 and one, five, 303 of the SQL guidelines, and that no unusual circumstances or other factors set forth in section 15300.2 of the SQL guidelines preclude the use of this exemption. Number three make the required findings to grant the variance pursuant to section 8111-1.2.2.2. Based upon substantial evidence presented in section E of the Staff Report and the entire record number four grant the requested variance of case number PL 25 0095, subject to the conditions of approval attached as exhibit six, and specify that the clerk of the Planning Commission is the custodian, and that 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California, 93009 is the location of the documents and materials that constitute the administrative record of all proceedings upon which the

foregoing decisions are based. So I'm available for questions if there's any questions related to the case. We also have representatives, as I stated before, from elevated entitlements and Blue Energy Holdings, if there's any questions for the applicant. Questions. Is there any questions of staff from the Commission? Commissioner Boysen, could you put up the site plan again? Sure. So if I understand correctly, the only encroachment into the flood control area is that one fence that goes to the channel. Yes. I would describe it as a a connecting fence or a return fence that goes up to a, an existing chain link fence that's located along the channel itself. And is there a chain link fence along the railroad right of way that closes off that? I believe there's return fencing there too. But on that side, yeah. Okay. And just to clarify, flood control doesn't have a problem with not having access to the channel for that length. They've been involved in conversations related to this case. So we did we did notify them. My experiences with other county public works agencies, which is an encroachment permit, is common, you know, for for various property improvement structures. They did not ject to the request or, you know,

provide any comments otherwise basically saying that they would not grant. They provided conditions of approval. Okay. Thank you. I did have one question for planning staff in your earlier statement where you were explaining the general plan and zoning designations. I just wanted some clarification. You had said the zoning designation IND differs from normal industrial classifications. Is this just because there's a single family dwelling located within the project site, or is there more specifics behind that differentiation? Sure. So let me let me clarify. So the property is located within a the excuse me, the Saticoy area plan, which has specific zoning categories that are different from the the normal base zoning categories of the of the Non-coastal zoning ordinance. So the distinction that I was making there was basically between the normal sorry, sorry, sorry to refer to to it this way, but the vanilla M1, M2 and M3 categories of the Non-coastal zoning ordinance. So this is I and I believe that the, the there's a separate table that we use. This kind of goes back to what I was referring to as the we have to look at two separate sections of the code to make sure that we get all of the standards related to fencing, but in this case we wouldn't. So we there is the zoning for the property that is IND. We would go specifically to appendix B of the the Saticoy area plan, which is part of the the Ventura County Code of Ordinances. So it's actually it's not in the same section as the the normal Non-coastal zoning ordinance. I believe it's, you know, some point after, in order to get land use, land permitted land uses for

the IND category, and those differ from the, you know, normal m1m2 the we didn't I didn't look personally into the the the differences if to to sort of keep track of of how much it differs. I think that it does allow for similar types of, of industrial intensity. But I think it's, I think there is some, some a little bit more limitations specific to the, the IND. Again, that's not based on, on like a survey. I think it's just my, my sense of it in terms of the non-conforming for the, the property. So again, so the property does possess a single family dwelling. We did review the record. We did establish that fact during our review of the materials for this case. So because that's the case, we would then the zoning for the property is IND. However, we would then go into the regular Non-coastal zoning ordinance to apply. Or to to to yes, apply like things like setbacks. So there's a it's then becomes legal nonconforming. There's a provision in the normal, you know non-coastal zoning ordinance provisions that basically says when there is a legal nonconforming residential structure, you then for building setbacks. Specifically, you apply the R-1 standards, but that is only specific to the the the home itself. With again, this is the part of the the difficulty of of tracking some of the standards. In this case, we we applied the Saticoy area plans specific to fencing,

again, because it it does specifically state in the area plan. There are separate standards for for fencing in that case. So in terms of legal nonconforming it the only thing that we would kind of cordon off for this property would be setback in lot coverage specific to the R-1 for the the home. Okay. Thank you for that, Commissioner. Can I I just want to provide a little 10,000 foot perspective I think is helpful because there's a lot of density there. So the way our policy documents work is we have the general plan, envision a funnel. Okay, here's our general plan. And we have policies that apply to all parcels in the unincorporated county. We also, as a jurisdiction can adopt area plans. And so we have several of those, one of which is the Saticoy area plan. So we have that application here. Then we have another layer. And that's your Saticoy area plan that has specific policies to that unique geographic area. All of those policies apply, but Saticoy has selected to do more unique policies to their community. Similarly with our Nhco ordinance, zoning ordinance, it's that funnel again, we have. All parcels are subject to that. And then within that Saticoy area plan, they actually can identify and adopt, or the board can more specific zoning ordinance criteria or requirements. And so that's what John is referring to. So when he had to evaluate this case, he's evaluating it for what are the provisions for both of those larger general plan and non coastal zoning ordinance. And then what are the more specific policies and standards that apply to those parcels in that geographic area. So that's what he that was the technical, you know, sort of explanation he was giving. But I wanted to give you a visual of how the these policies and standards are ordinances are structured. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. One more follow up question also sort of

piggybacking off of Commissioner Boynton's point earlier, when it comes to the flood control channel, I just wanted to understand there's no like points of access at the Watershed Protection District would have to access through the part that was encroached upon by the applicant. So just wanting to confirm that there's no points of access there, and of course, that the encroachment permit would essentially suffice as the necessary sort of permission from the Watershed Protection District to allow the applicant for that fencing in that area. So the. With with respect to the to the points of access, I believe that they they possess access to the creek and various locations. I think that that this segment enough warrants, you know, the the the location of the the fence in that area again for for security concerns in terms of the sufficiency of the the request. Yes. I believe that the the the encroachment permit is is the extent of the permission that that needs to be granted there. The encroachment permits are pretty common for other divisions of the the Public Works Agency. Like I said, when we talked with with county flood control staff, their logistics logistics didn't really come up in terms of, you know, what happens in the event that there's an issue on this, you know, segment. I like I said, I believe that there is sufficient access along the creek for them to, to address, you know, any kind of maintenance or other issue that would go along with the creek, including, you know, access to the property itself if if necessary. Okay. Thank you. If I, if I may briefly. Commissioner, Commissioner

Sandlin, assistant county counsel David Edsel, we've planning we sometimes use the shorthand today legalize the fence. But I just wanted to clarify that today's action is a discretionary variant. It's basically authorizing, you know, to deviate from those code sections we've discussed. The fence itself does not become legal until it completes the conditions of approval, as Mr. Oquendo noted, that included zoning clearance from planning. It includes the permit from watershed. So there are other processes, other permits that it needs to go through before it becomes legalized. So today is just basically that first step of authorizing this deviation. And then if watershed in their permitting process, they require something else. They're welcome to do that. But they don't. They no longer have to worry about whether it's or, you know, any agency that whether it complies because today's author, whether it's authorized or not. But today's decision would be to authorize that deviation from development standards, but doesn't actually become legal until it completes that process. Thank you. Commissioner Cushman. Do we know how long that fence has been up there? That fact I did not establish the citation is from 2022. Let me see. I mean, I went out there and looked at the fence and it looks like it's been there quite a long time. So I would say knows when that maybe. Do you have a. Yeah. Go ahead. Good morning. My name is Kevin Cohen. I'm with elevated entitlements representing the landowner Blue Holdings. Again thank you for your time this morning. Appreciate you being here and and reviewing our case. I wanted to clarify two items. Chair Boydston did bring up a

question regarding access. There is a a pin lock or a box lock key box that is accessible with the flood control district. So there has been open communication with them for the past two years on that access. So they have the code to get access to that key and access the flood control channel. So discussions been with them open for the past two years now. So they're aware of that access. As far as the fence that's been there since 2017, prior to when my client purchased the property and when it was purchased, she did raise the height from 6 to 8. After purchasing the property. So the fence has been there about 2017, 2017. Okay. One other question. Has there been any complaints from the from the neighborhood about the height of the fence? There has not been any complaints from the neighborhood. There's actually multiple fencing. If you look on Google Street View, 10 to 12ft high in that same neighborhood, the reasoning is largely a security issue. There's a lot of graffiti, vagrants, issues with loitering and being at the end of the valley or end of the cul de sac there, a lot of eyes are not being seen. So providing that camera security fencing helped to illuminate that area, helping Flood Control District with that communication. Security has been important along with fencing. Yeah. When I went out there, there was multiple lights and cameras out there, and I figured that it was probably for security reason. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Boysen, I just have a question for counsel. By putting in these fences, essentially, a private property owner now gets to use public

property for their own use. Any legalities there? I know in other jurisdictions, when that sort of happens, there's licensing agreements or something like that, as opposed to giving public land to a private entity. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Boydston. That's the encroachment permit would address that. This parcel, the flood control area, is owned in fee by the Watershed Protection District. So they would have the authority to grant that encroachment. I know that I can think of other examples, just in my experience of when that's happened, as long as it's subject to, you know, an express grant of permission from the public entity, that would be permissible. I think sometimes the issue can be when it's I mean, now I'm going out, but, you know, if it's a public park or a public beach, there might be different issues at play, but there's really no restriction on the public entity itself granting an encroachment permit. Any other questions from the commission? Seeing none, I will now open the public hearing with the applicant. Like to make any further presentation than what you stated. Secretary Lewis, do we have any public comments or speakers at this time? Chair Sandlin We did not receive any public comments for this item. And would staff like to present any closing remarks? No, no. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing. Is there any discussion or motion of the Commission? I would like to make a motion to approve staff's recommendations for where is it? Where's the oh PL 25 0095? We have a motion from

Commissioner Kessler. I'll second that. We have a second from Commissioner Cushing. Secretary Lewis, please take roll call. Commissioner Boydston. Yes, Commissioner. Kent. Yes, Commissioner. Ayala. Yes. Vice chair. Cushing. Yes. Chair. Sandlin. Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Five votes. The next item is item number seven, a report from the Assistant Planning Director, Susan Curtis. On board actions and other matters. I just want to advise your commission that we have April 2nd Planning Commission hearing scheduled to hear one item. It's case number PL 20 1-0019. And that's the continued operation and maintenance of a camp with a variance to continue the camp's historic overnight and daily population. That's the only item on that agenda. And that's all I have to report. Are there are there any commission? My apologies. That's the Forest Home camp in Ojai area. Thank you, Assistant Planning Director Curtis, are there any other items the commissioners wish to discuss or introduce? Seeing none. I will now adjourn this meeting.