Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting for February 19th, 2026. Secretary Lewis, please take roll call. Good morning, Commissioner Boydston here, Commissioner Kesley here. Commissioner Ayala here. Vice chair gushing here. Chair Sandlin here. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. I pledge allegiance to 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, did we receive any comments on the items not included on this agenda? Chair Sandlin yes, we do receive one public comments and he would like to do a PowerPoint presentations. Right now. His name is Don Smith. Okay. Thank you. Don, you have three minutes. Good morning. This work. Point of order. Before we start, I actually there's a revised agenda that has of correspondence on as item number eight, I spoke to director Ward. He thought it I was unaware of this. It would be appropriate if I go ahead and and speak to you under public comment. If you're amenable. And also, I know you've got a very busy agenda, very important item. But if you are so inclined, chair, and I'd like to request five minutes on this. Director Ward, are we allowed to grant the five minutes for him? It's to the

chair and commissioners. Pleasure. Yeah. Yes. That's granted. Okay. Could you reset the clock for me, please? Yes. Hold on a second. All right. Go ahead. Shoot. Hold on. She's working on it. There we go. Thank you. Good morning. Commissioners. I will be brief, brief and succinct here. This is a very important item. This is in regards to the correspondence that we sent to you on the 13th. And this pertains to the issue of economically beneficial use specifically within the coastal zone of the western Santa Monica mountains of Ventura. So the matter that we wish to discuss is how it is currently being interpreted by the staff on how they treat the concept of economically beneficial use. The position currently, according to the planning staff and my staff, is that if somebody has an existing home, no matter how small, they are not allowed to expand that home if it will further encroach into environmentally sensitive habitat area. And pursuant to the amendment to the local coastal program, all upland chaparral is now considered environmentally sensitive habitat area, where previously it was just in the creek bottoms. This is hugely important that it align with important case law, not just case law stare decisis. Now I realize it puts a chill in the room. Whenever somebody comes up and starts talking about their constitutional rights, but this is actually reflected in our LCP as it pertains to how you define economically beneficial use and is laid out in our in our letter to you, the key Supreme Court cases are

known versus California Coastal Commission, which requires a nexus. We're probably okay on that. But that then goes to the next Supreme Court case, which is Dolan, versus the city of Tigard, which requires the county to make a finding of proportionality. And then there's Palazzolo versus Rhode Island, which is rational, economic backed expectations, which also refers to Penn Central Transportation versus the city of New York. Now, the Board of Supervisors has directed staff and is moving forward. And with the consultation with this planning commission to streamline and improve the permit process, you're very much aware of this and the rationale on the Board of Supervisors, which is, of course, our legislative body. I think my firm thinks and the many people that we are talking to out there think that this is a hugely important issue that be part of the deliberations for the Board of Supervisors. You see, currently you are limited to a 10,000 square foot pad, which is not at all a typical for coastal counties and cities in the state of California, in areas that have environmentally sensitive habitat area. The problem with the current interpretation is that staff is saying a completely undeveloped parcel, which is blanketed with Esha, can build a new home with a 10,000 square foot building pad. However, if you have an existing home, no matter how small, this is just one example of many. This is a 2800 square foot house, an existing home. There's homes in the Santa Monica mountains that are less than 1000ft■!S, but they would t be allowed to expand their home, build a new home. Under the current interpretation, if it's

going to have any additional impacts to Esha. Now, we believe very strongly this is a constitutional taking based upon our understanding. Today's not the day to have that that discussion, that debate. County council is highly educated. They understand these issues very well, but most certainly it requires a thorough vetting. The Board of Supervisors, as previously mentioned, is moving forward on amending the codes and providing direction to staff on how they should interpret those codes. And that's coming up quickly. And I'm here speaking to the Planning Commission today, because you are in the trenches, you are the ones that are reviewing applications on a regular basis, rightfully so. You're appointing powers give a great deal of weight to your opinion on these things. Such an important issue, which in my opinion, and I've been working in the coastal zone for over 40 years. I used to be in the employ of the Coastal Commission. I've been a private sector consultant representing cities and counties and individual property owners since 1989. The interpretation, which fails to take into account the economic takings issue as illustrated by the Supreme Court rulings, is a train wreck. It needs to be addressed. The staff needs direction from this planning commission and from the Board of Supervisors. So with that, I appreciate the extra time, and I'm available for any questions that you may have. And you have my correspondence from the 13th. Okay. Thank you Don. Thank you sir. Any questions of the commission? Question? I have a question for staff on that. I read the letter. Or when we do, when we have applications, do we apply the palazzo? Is that my saying it right. The palazzo

test. That's that's in that letter. Chair Sandland staff will review applications that are submitted to us and we'll review that against our adopted local coastal program on the coastal zoning ordinance. If there are questions about the Developability and what's being proposed, and we need to look at legal analysis, we would do that. Thank you, director Ward. The next item of the next item is the approval of the minutes for January 22nd, 2026. Do we have any discussion or a motion to approve the minutes for January 22nd, 2026? I'll move a move to approve the minutes. I'll second the minutes. We have a motion from Commissioner Kessler and a second by Commissioner Cushing. Secretary Lewis, please take roll call. Commissioner Boylston. Yes, Commissioner. Kent. Yes, Commissioner. Ayala. Yes. Vice chair. Cushing. Yes. Chair. Sandlin. Yes. The next item is item six, a case number P.L. 230051. The applicant is Ventura Ranch Partners, LLC. The project description. This item is continued public hearing from January 22nd, 2026. The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map, discretionary Tree Permit and a plan development permit case number PL 250040 to subdivide a parcel into three developable lots and a conservation lot, and to construct a 328 unit

farmworker housing complex. The project location is at 4844884 North Ventura Avenue, approximately 1.7 miles north of the city of Ventura, in an 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 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 Lewis, please take roll call. Commissioner Boydston no disclosures. Commissioner Kesley, I have no disclosures. Commissioner A. No disclosures. Vice chair, no disclosure. Chair. Sandlin. No. Okay. Case planner Michael Conger, please proceed with your presentation. Good morning, chair Sandlin and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Michael Conger, representing the Ventura County Planning Division on this project. The project before you this morning is a tentative parcel map plan, development permit and discretionary tree permit for the Ventura Ranch Farmworker Housing Project. The file number is PL 23 0051. For those wishing to participate on zoom, you may register at the link provided on the screen. If you're participating by computer, you can click the Raise Hand button to indicate your interest in speaking on this item. If you're participating by phone, you can dial star and then nine to be queued to speak. This is on agenda item number six A. I'm going to take a little bit of time to reorient you to the project, since it's been about

a month since you saw this item. I'll go through these slides fairly quickly, but we can always go back to a slide if needed. And I should mention this is a continued hearing from the January 22nd, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. The project site is located on North Ventura Avenue, approximately one and a half miles north of the city of Ventura, at the southeast corner of Norway Drive and Ventura Avenue. The site has split zoning and general plan land use designations. The western portion of the site, which will be the focus of our discussion today, is zoned agricultural exclusive and designated in the General Plan as existing Community agricultural. It's designated in the North Ventura Avenue Area plan as agriculture. The eastern portion of the site is zoned and designated open space. This is an aerial image showing the full project site. The total site is about 80 acres and this is an aerial image. Zooming in on the 20 acre portion of the western side of the property, where the proposed development will occur. This project involves three different entitlements. First, we have a tentative parcel map to subdivide the property into four parcels. We have a planned development permit to authorize construction and operation of a 328 unit farmworker housing complex. It's a phased development. And finally, a discretionary tree permit to authorize removal of five heritage trees and two oak trees, one of which will be relocated. This is the landscape plan for the project, illustrating how things would look at project build out. When this project was first heard by your planning Commission on January 22nd, the Commission continued the matter to allow staff to address several

different topics, and we'll address those in order. The first topic is the reliability of the water source, to provide further documentation of the sufficiency of the water source. Planning staff attached the Water Analysis Review as exhibit 18 to the staff report packet. Excuse me, exhibit 17 to the Staff report packet and fire flow tests as exhibit 18 to the Staff Report packet. These documents support a conclusion that there's sufficient water pressure in the pressure zone that would serve the Ventura Ranch project. Additionally, the Water Analysis Review found that there would be about 420,000 surplus gallons of storage in the pressure zone. We have a letter from the city of Ventura concurring with the findings of the water analysis review attached as exhibit 20. Additionally, the fire department verbally confirmed that the applicant has documented sufficient fire flow. Finally, a recently adopted statute, AB 367, will require that all water purveyors serving very high fire hazard severity zones in Ventura County provide sufficient backup power to ensure a 24 hour water supply in case power ever gets cut off. Next, the Planning Commission inquired into the countywide evacuation program. Evacuations fall within the scope of the September 2024 All Hazards evacuation plan. A link to the plan is provided in the continuance memo. But to summarize, essentially, law enforcement takes the lead in evacuations and receives support from the fire department. Law enforcement collects information on the threat or hazard on vulnerable populations and infrastructure and on available resources, and that all feeds into an ongoing situational analysis. This is where matters such as limited access to roads and high fire severity can play can factor in. Based on that analysis, law

enforcement determines the extent and the level of evacuations necessary, and establishes and prioritizes evacuation zones. Information is then disseminated to the public through a variety of approaches, including public address systems, social media, emergency alert systems, and by going door to door. We've heard that preparation is one of the most essential factors in successful evacuations. And to that end, the planning director has recommended that a new condition of approval be added to the project. This condition is be number, number, be 21, and it would require that the applicant prepare a wildfire preparation educational program as part of the fire protection plan, and then that program be reviewed annually with residents of the complex to discuss evacuation preparedness. After speaking with the Office of Emergency Services, the planning Division recommends modifying condition B 21 slightly by adding a reference to a site specific evacuation plan, and that's reflected in the errata memo that was distributed yesterday. The Office of Emergency Services has reviewed the proposed condition and concurs with its inclusion. The next issue concerns the traffic study. The Planning Commission asked that the applicant revisit the traffic study to address traffic impacts at Stanley Avenue and to address school related trips regarding Stanley Avenue. This intersection was not within the approved scope of work for the traffic study. In speaking with the Roads and Transportation Department, their general approach is that intersections within one mile are generally sufficient for study. In this case, Stanley Avenue is 2.4 miles south of the project site. Furthermore, the project is anticipated to generate only a minimal amount of additional trips to Stanley Avenue because all but local

traffic will enter State Route 33 at Kenyatta Larga or Schell Roads. Based on this, the applicant's traffic engineer suggests that any level of service issues that might arise at Stanley Avenue can be readily addressed by adjusting the traffic signal programing. Finally, with respect to the school related trips, bussing will be offered to all students, all for all grade levels based on the distance to school. The Planning Commission also requested additional analysis as deemed necessary by the Planning Director. Based on the Commission's direction, the planning Director did not see a need for further analysis. However, the Planning Division did want to point out that we'd been in contact with both the City of Ventura and the Ventura Unified School District. About the project. The city provided the letter, which is attached in exhibit 20, and the Ventura Unified School District confirmed verbally that they can accommodate students at the existing local schools. Next, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provided a response regarding the possibility of avoiding oak tree removal. Unfortunately, there is no viable option to avoid the removal of an oak tree because the oak tree is in a location where road improvements would need to go. The road improvements include up to 11ft of road widening to accommodate pave out of the road surface, plus curbs, gutters, a planter strip and sidewalks. There is no feasible means of completing these improvements without removing the oak tree. The Planning Commission also requested that the applicant respond to the amount of community space in phase one of the development. The applicant's position is that they are meeting the objective standards in the Non Coastal Zoning Ordinance for outdoor space and amenities. The amenities provided include

a community center, bocce ball and a garden. In phase one, 1.19 acres of outdoor space is provided, 0.93 acres of spaces required under the ordinance, so that standard is satisfied. Finally, the Planning Commission requested an applicant response for how family space was sized in the units. The applicant confirmed that the units were sized based on the sizing criteria put forward by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, which is a potential funding source for the project. Living room space was determined based on the number of bedrooms in the unit size. Now we'll move on to recommended actions. Before I summarize the recommendation, I want to point out that the materials being presented today are. Build on the staff report and materials from the January 22nd, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, and this includes an analysis of consistency with the Non Coastal Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, the General Plan and the North Ventura Avenue Area Plan. Additionally, section B of the January 22nd staff report outlines the Housing Accountability Act provisions, which is an important consideration for your commission. In our analysis, staff concludes that the project satisfies all applicable objective policies and standards. Therefore, the Planning Division recommends that your Commission one certify that you've reviewed and considered the staff report and public comments. Two find that the project is exempt from Sequa under Sequa guidelines, section 15183 and Public Resources Code section 21083.33. Find that the tentative parcel map complies with the subdivision ordinance as set forth in exhibit nine four. Approve the tentative parcel map subject to the conditions in exhibit 19, as modified by

the errata memo. Five Grant A partial credit of the Quimby Ordinance fees conditioned on the General Services Agency, confirming satisfaction of the standards. Six. Make the required findings to grant the PD permit and discretionary Tree Permit, and to grant the request to density bonus law concessions and parking reductions. Seven Grant the requested concessions and parking reductions under the Density Bonus Law. Eight Grant the PD permit and Discretionary Tree Permit, subject to the conditions of approval and exhibit 19, as modified by the errata memo, and finally specify that the clerk of the Planning Commission is the Custodian of records. Once again, for those wishing to participate on zoom, you may register at the link provided on the screen. If you're participating on the computer, you can press the Raise Hand button to indicate you wish to speak. If you're participating by phone, you can dial star then nine to be queued to speak. This is again on agenda item number six A. This concludes staff's presentation today. Planning staff and our consultants are available to respond to any questions. Additionally, we have staff from other agencies standing by to respond to any specific questions that might involve their agency. The applicants, representative, Neil McGuire, is also here to speak on behalf of the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Connor. Any questions of the staff by the Commission? Seeing none. I will now open the public hearing with the applicant. Like to make a presentation at this time. Good morning. Chair, vice chair and

commissioners. I'm Neil McGuire on behalf of the project applicant this morning. We do have other project team members who are here this morning to answer questions about specific issues that were touched upon by planning staff already, but I'd like to address a couple background principles that informed our responses to the commissioners request from the last hearing. Because of the demand for affordable housing and, frankly, the pushback that often comes with it as well. We have special rules that apply to affordable housing projects, and these rules focus on objective standards. For example, rules like a setback must be 15ft, a building height must be 40ft, things that are black and white in nature, and a project like ours that meets the objective standards that the county has should be approved. And also if the county has concerns about a project, a farm worker housing project, those concerns must be based on written objective standards, and those standards have to have been in place at the time of the application. Completeness determination for the project. And so and also in, in addition to the fact that the standards themselves have to be objectives, if there are concerns that are being raised about impacts in light of those standards, they have to be quantifiable. They cannot be based just on personal feelings, subjective opinions, things like that. Again, we're looking at and we're supposed to be looking at really black and white issues. And so it wouldn't be kind of using my building height standards. Example from before. We have an objective standard that, for

example, if you had a height standard limitation of 40ft, it would not be appropriate to then make a determination to deny a project under the Housing Accountability Act based on a subjective opinion that a project would just be too high in comparison to a neighborhood standard. So. So these are the types of rules that, again, apply when you are looking at a project that qualifies under the Housing Accountability Act. And these are the rules that we utilized when we look back and address the Commission's concerns and requests from last time. The last hearing in January, we were looking back at these fundamental issues. What are the objective standards that are at play with regard to this project? And if there was a concern that was raised, is it being based on an objective, quantifiable potential impact? And so with that really legal background, I'd like to introduce Doug Nichols as part of the project team to discuss some of the follow up issues regarding fire safety. So thank you for your time and consideration. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the Commission. Doug Nichols with duduk on the fire protection team. Nice to be with you again this morning. As Mr. McGuire mentioned, I just wanted to either remind or restate some of the issues that are included within the memorandum that we provided as technical backup for some of the questions that were brought up, some of the concerns that were brought up regarding fire safety. And one thing I wanted to bring up regarding evacuation travel time is, again, to state that there are no significant standards or guidelines for evacuation travel time either within this project area within

the city or. In fact throughout the state. There's no secret requirements, others that you have to meet, certain thresholds or certain travel time. And the guideline has always been public safety. You know, what would be the appropriate actions to take for public safety and to evacuate appropriately, whether that be by areas or by time, depending on the situation. Various emergencies approaching wildfire being one of those. Likewise. Similarly, there's no established thresholds to meet that you need to meet certain requirements. Again, that's either locally or even statewide. There's nothing that's ever been dictated. And the reason being, frankly, is emergencies are such a wide variety that you can't determine that a certain time has to be met. A certain threshold has to be met by a certain type of emergency or in a certain location, so fluid and dynamic that it has to be flexible. And so the law enforcement officials, public safety officials, fire department are making decisions moment by moment, depending on how that evacuation needs to take place based on that emergency. Regarding evacuations, there's been more of an emphasis placed on what's called targeted evacuations. You're looking at specific areas, specific zones, again, reflective of the type of emergency that's occurring. And now with some of the lessons learned, even with some of the lessons learned from the Thomas Fire. But throughout the state is, you know, public safety officials see how evacuations unfold rather than just broadcasting a citywide, county wide, area wide evacuation. You know, everybody leave, they target, they say, okay, we need to get a certain area out first and start that process moving. And so that's something that's

continue to be emphasized where you target certain areas rather than having something as a mass evacuation. And this helps to minimize gridlock and gets the right people out at the right time. And again, if that needs to be adjusted, depending on the emergency or as wildfires come and go, as the weather changes for wildfire, they make those adjustments as well. I did want to emphasize that wildfire action is being proposed. This project, some of the components of. What I was just implementing, what was proposed in the wildfire evacuation study, those things that were addressed there, make sure that that's fully implemented at the project site. And that would include an educational program bringing up the ready, set, go concepts that are already implemented by the county. Being aware of the Ventura County Alert Program, and then making sure there's an annual meeting with residents and the employees. In fact, employees would have a mandatory employee training meeting. And then you having published materials and a web page dedicated to evacuation routes and the processes just to keep keep people aware and actually have some drills, evacuation drills, plan ahead. You know, those doesn't have to be just for schoolchildren in an elementary lot. You know, we all could use that. And I know that's becoming more and more of an issue with throughout. So those types of training programs would be included. The other thing I wanted to mention was there was a question about how does the county actually countywide implement their evacuation program, and there are certain standards that are followed, and these have been determined to be best practices. There's what's called an incident command system, and that's been in place for many years now for emergencies. And

that's what the county uses. They also rely on the standard emergency management system and the national incident management system as well. So there are systems in place that are used nationwide actually for multiple types of emergencies. And by following those we have developed some best practices. And that as was mentioned by staff, there's the emergency operations plan and then the all hazards evacuation plan, which dictate some of those activities is who's responsible, the order in which that's done. And those were recently updated, the emergency operations plan in 2021. And then the all hazards evacuation plan in 2024, again, taking advantage of some of the lessons learned from the recent events, in particular the Thomas Fire. And then I did also want to restate that in the staff report, it is mentioned that the fire Department has concluded that the project has addressed all the fire hazard related impacts. So I wanted to kind of wrap this up by just saying that whether it be your for your security, for your own home or your own safety, that personal preparedness is always the key to safety, including evacuation. You know, it would be nice to rely on public safety officials all the time, but we don't have enough officials for every single resident. They indicated that 90,000 people were evacuated during the Thomas Fire. That means we need to have 90,000 people prepared personally to know what to do. We can't have 90,000 public safety officials to take care of each person individ So residents need to be aware of the evacuation routes and the planning and how to prepare. That's why we propose to fire evacuation plan that it is in fact site specific to this project, and to employ those types of activities that we know are relevant and

appropriate. Again, realizing that public safety is the most important part, timing will be rely on the public safety officials, but each individual needs to be prepared. So that's the intent of to have this action plan ready to go and make sure that the residents feel comfortable and are prepared. Thank you very much. Always be available for any questions if you have any. Any questions of the applicant from the Commission. Yeah, I have one quick question. Commissioner Cushing, during your presentation right now, you said that the staff would have an annual mandatory training, right? Yes. That's correct. Okay. Are the residents going to have a mandatory annual training. Will be will be option will be available to them. I don't know how they could make it mandatory and expected, but the idea is that it would be advertised and available. I would like to encourage them. I don't know if there's going to be some incentives for that, but I think certainly people will realize the benefit of it, but it will be mandatory for the employees. That's that's our recommendation. Well, when someone moves in, you could make it mandatory probably that they attain some kind of training. There was certainly there's a proposal to have an orientation for new residents. You know, each time they come in, you know, you orient them, have the whatever the HOA type of a packet, information available will include that. I mean, there are listening audience right there. So that's the optimum time to get them. And then as things come up, things need to be refreshed to bring that available to them. Okay. Thank you. I have a question if I may. So regarding the condition of approval B 21, it may be a premature question to ask now, but just wondering whether this site specific evacuation plan will be provided to the residents in a culturally relevant manner, meaning in a language that they

can understand? We can certainly do that. I realize that there is likelihood of that to be the case. Certainly bilingual, perhaps even more. But we will certainly plan for that. Thank you. Secretary Lewis, do we have any public comments or any speakers for this item? Yes, chair, we do have I have one actual question for the applicant before we go there. And this would be for Neil. Neil, I kind of want to follow up on your comments about the objective standards for this project and and what it means as far as from us as a county and what our guiding principle are as a county. And maybe county council can offer some guidance on this too as well. If this project meets the objective standards, is the county allowed to not approve this project, but based on state law? And I guess that would be for both the county council and and Neil and I would say the county must approve the project unless there are some narrow circumstances that would apply where there are specific, quantifiable, significant adverse impacts on the environment based on existing written objective standards and existing meaning they were in place at the time of project completeness. I know that's a mouthful and that's coming from state law. The short answer is there are no such written

standard objective standards that are applied to this project right now. So it is our view that the county must approve this project under the Housing Accountability Act. Thank you Neil. Thank you. And I follow up from one more question here from Commissioner Cushing before you go. Yes. So the facility that is in Camarillo, the same size units are going to be built here. Is that correct? I would defer to Lisa, but I believe that is the case. Yes. Okay. Because I visited the facility in Camarillo and I toured a three bedroom. Okay. And it seemed very adequate for. And I just want to make sure we're getting the same sizes in this project. Yes. Thank you, thank you. Any question for County Council on a follow up to that question with Neil? Yeah. So the the standard for if your commission was inclined to deny the project under the Housing Accountability Act, it would require a written finding that the project has a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and that specific adverse impact would need to be. Conflict with this. As Mr. McGuire said, objective standards. So it couldn't be a subjective determination. It has to be based on a conflict with objective standards. And I think thank you, County Council. Barnes, and another question for staff. The staff, have you guys found any objective standards that are conflicting? As county council, Barnes stated? Commissioner. Sorry. Chair Sandlin no, we did not find any conflicts with the objective standards. And

there's a full analysis in exhibit seven of the staff report packet of the Non-coastal Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance Standards. And we found it was consistent with all of those standards. Thank you, Mr. Conger. Secretary Lewis, do we have any public comments or speakers, or is there any other questions of staff from the Commission? Secretary? Lewis, do we have any. Oh, would it be appropriate to ask, like the Sheriff's department at this time, or is that a question? I'll defer to director Ward on that chair. Commissioner Cushing, if you'd like to ask. We do have staff representatives from the various agencies, or you may want to go to public comment to see if there are things out of the public comment that might stimulate the desire for staff responses. Okay, I'll wait till after public comment. Secretary Luce, do we have any speakers? Chair Sandlin Yes, we do have speakers, public speakers in person, and we also have some right now. We do have 25 speakers in person and just wanted to reconfirm with you, is it a three minutes per person or are you changing it? Yes. And how many do we have on zoom right now? We do have 5 to 5. So we have a total of 30. Yes. So that is correct 30 times three. That's going to be 90 minutes of if we allow the full three minutes, I think if we can do a, maybe a break in between at the 45 minute mark, we'll go ahead and do that five minute break, bathroom break for people. But yes, let's proceed with the full three minutes to give the full amount of time for speakers. Okay. Thank you. All right. So

the first speaker would be Julie Perez, followed by Ste Bostock and then Patrick Trouble Bridge Trowbridge. Can you hear me? Yes, yes, yes. Okay. Good morning. I'm a Valley Vista resident. We are shoulder to shoulder directly downwind of the project site. The wind blows every day from that area right through our neighborhood. Dirt and dust and fungal spores will be exposed to us when they start turning up that soil in 2023, shortly after the orchard that was there behind our homes was removed, my mild asthma became very severe and it still is. The Ceqa checklist does not include any analysis of dust exposure for people who live in Valley Vista. And I. Secrets put in place to protect people. Dust from deep soil disturbance can cause asthma and carry all kinds of fungal spores,

including the ones for valley fever. Same goes for diesel exhaust, a known carcinogen from heavy equipment required for a project this size. The Valley Vista residents will be breathing that air every day for possibly years. Another concern is how the studies were prepared. This bothers me. The same Rincon consultant team produced the applicant studies and the county seek a findings with no independent county modeling. It's hard to explain why these health related impacts were left out without dust modeling or diesel modeling, and without a Valley fever analysis, the county cannot say these impacts are less than significant. So I respectfully ask you to require a full environmental impact report so the health risks can be properly studied before construction begins. Thank you. Got that one out. Thank you for your comments. Thank you Julie. Next is Steve followed by Patrick and then Victoria Ormsby. Good morning everybody. I'm Steve Bostock and I'm here today. Kind of just to reiterate the fact that I looked at the way this place was getting built and going back to what was said in

January about sheltering in place. I truly believe if you want to pass this thing, I'll pull my signs down, I'll shut my websites down, I'll do whatever I gotta do. But you gotta do it right. The number one thing that's objective about this is that it's for the safety and well-being of our farm workers, and not your profits. So with that said, if you want to build a place so that they can shelter in place, go for it. But you're not going to put vinyl windows that are going to burn and fall out. You got to put windows that close. So the people that aren't there, it turns your 62nd or 60 minute stay in place. Theory to one open window. The place is going to burn down. You're going to have a thousand windows in this proposal. How are they going to close every one of these windows in the event of a fire? They're not. So they need to be shelter in place, approved housing. And it's it's got to be done that way if you're going to do it. This is a very high fire severity zone. If they're going to get over that ordinance, make it safe for farmworkers. Please, please, please, I have safe farmer Housing.com know Ventura Ranch. Com I've been working on this thing for years. I've looked at this from every angle. You could look at it. I've got hundreds and hundreds of hours. I've sent you guys comments left and right of every reason why they need to do the Ceqa. They're trying to they're trying to sneak through Ceqa. I mean, look at I live my fence is right here. This place is going to be right here, right behind me. The like you're saying the dust, Julie, her asthma's kicked up. I mean, it's crazy what they're going to be doing. They have zero emissions for the vehicles that are working on the property in their reports. Zero. If they did, those emission ratings would be so high they wouldn't approve it. So they put 3 or 4 farm equipment, 2 or 4 equipment that's so expensive, how can you even say you can do that? There isn't even a full fleet of tier four equipment in Ventura County that you can

rent, borrow, buy or whatever. It's impossible that you can do that. And you just built Somis next to a school using zero to level three equipment. You poison those kids. I mean, this is all about doing it safely and doing it the right way for the people. I own a glass company. I got 40 years experience in the glass business. I've seen windows melt, vinyl windows melt from fire, Thomas fire. Half the windows I changed were because they melted and opened the house up to exposure. So you're going to put vinyl windows in this place. You're out of your mind. You're absolutely out of your mind. Anyway, I'm too excited. Please read my public comment that I sent to you guys the videos I sent you. They destroyed that beautiful lemon orchard, pulled it out at night, worked until 9:00 at night so people wouldn't see it. They didn't do a soil sample before it. Seek a seek a demands that the the soil sample be done before you leave. Your time is up. Anyway, thank you so much, everybody. Next is Patrick then followed by Victoria Ormsby, Karen and then Jose Garcia. Thank you. Go ahead. Good morning everyone. My name is Patrick Trowbridge. I'm a business representative with operating Engineers local 12. I personally have worked on projects like this. And projects like this are incredibly good for the community. It's important we help serve the community. This project is a pathway to accessible housing, which is in short supply in Ventura County. It also creates local jobs during the process. For those reasons, I urge you to move forward with this project. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next is Victoria, followed by Karen

Clark. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the board. My name is Victoria Ormsby and I am a resident in Ventura County and a rank and file member of the Iu0 local 12. And I work. I work in heavy civil construction here in our county. I'm here today to strongly support item six A the Ventura County, the Ventura Ranch Farm Worker housing project. I understand that there have been concerns raised about construction impact, including dust and diesel emissions. I don't argue those points, but I wish to inform. As someone who operates and works around the equipment daily, I want to clarify. The modern construction equipment in California is held to some of the strictest air quality standards in the county. In the country, today's diesel equipment operates under the tier four final standards used ultra low sulfur diesel, diesel particulates, filtered and diesel exhaust flue fluid systems to significantly reduce emissions. In addition to dust control measures such as water trucks and soil stabilization are standard practices on regulated jobsites. No project is built without oversight. Air quality, quality management and environmental compliances are part of the process. Local 12 is here because we believe in building communities the right way. We operate the equipment that builds the roads, installs the water systems, prepares the foundations and makes projects like this possible. When housing is built, infrastructure is built. When infrastructure is built, communities grow stronger. The project represents 328

affordable homes for farmworker families, families who are essential to Ventura County agricultural economy. It's raining outside and I have the opportunity to not go to work today. I had the privilege to drive here and stand inside this building to speak with you farm workers. Most of them are out still working. Okay. Farm workers don't have that option, rain or shine. They are in the fields because they have to be. They are feeding this country and this country, whether and this county weather, the weather cooperates or not. If we depend on them every single day, then we should be willing to stand up for them. Today, safe and stable housing strengthens families. It strengthens public health. It strengthens our local economy, and it strengthens Ventura County as a whole. I respectfully urge you to vote in support of item six A and advance this much needed housing. Thank you, thank you. Next is Karen. Good morning, Planning Commissioners. My name is Karen Flock. I'm the real estate development director with Ventura Housing, officially the housing authority of the City of San Buenaventura and Ventura Housing supports this project. We submitted a letter in support. We believe that staff has appropriately addressed the questions asked by the Planning Commissioner, by the Planning commissioners. This project will have 55 year affordability restrictions, will have on site management. It will have oversight by lenders, investors and the tax credit allocation committee. We'll have buildings in landscape built to current standards. And on a personal note, this will be a great place for kids to grow up close

to nature. They will have access to the conservation easement. And just recently we learned that the Ventura Land Trust has has acquired a nearby site. The former USA Petrochem. These opportunities will enhance kids curiosity, their opportunity for exploration and independence, and help keep them off screen. So please support this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Jose Garcia. Good morning. Chair, vice chair commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item. My name is Jose Garcia. I'm a lifelong member of Liuna, the Laborers International Union of North America. And most importantly, 57 year county resident. We're in full support of this project. Projects like this bring opportunity to our contractors, to our members. Our members need to gain 100 hours a month to keep off. Social programs to to be able to make sure that their families have insurance and other benefits that we provide for our members. Secondly, my mother was a farm worker, and if you don't know a farm worker personally, it's hard not to provide anything for them. I watched my mother come home tired from the rain, picking strawberries, picking other things here in the county to provide for other tables here in the county. And it's hard. It's hard. And as a young kid you don't realize it. But as you grow up, you do. And I can look back that thank God that my father was able to provide a decent home for her for to come and rest. And if you call, rest, coming home to make lunch, coming home to make dinner and do everything else, wash by hand, all those things

that we don't have, the amenities. We didn't have the amenities at those times. So please, these people provide the food on our tables. We need to respect that fact. And with all the other good things that come with this project, we ask that you please support this project. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. Thank you Seth. The next is Jan Crist, followed by Linda Bellamy and then Sarah Swidler. Good morning Chair Sandlin and members of the commission. My name is John Crist and I'm a member of the board of directors of House Farm Workers here to speak in support of the project. And before I retired in 2022, I served for 14 years as CEO of the Farm Bureau of Ventura County, which taught me a few things about local agriculture, and I want to focus on a few of those things today. You've heard repeatedly that the proposed Ventura Ranch Project site is unsuitable because it is far away from agricultural production sites, and that farmworker housing should be built on or near the farms where those workers are employed. These comments reflect a basic misunderstanding of the nature of Ventura County agriculture and its workforce. The implication that the term farm workers refers solely to field workers directly employed on farms is erroneous, as the county's own non-coastal zoning ordinance defines it, a farm worker is anyone who derives more than half their income from activities associated with agriculture. This broader definition encompasses the thousands of agricultural workers in this county who are employed not on farms, but in packing houses and processing facilities, greenhouses, or as equipment operators, truck

drivers, pest control applicators, and so many more. More jobs. And even if you restrict this to just field and orchard crews, the argument that these workers should live on or near the farms where they work fails to recognize that about half of them aren't employed by farms directly at all. They are hired by labor contractors whose crews are assigned to multiple farming operations all across the county at various times of the year. Like any other category of worker ag, employees should be trusted to make their own decisions about how far they're willing to drive from the places they live to the places they work. Your role in this context is to consider whether the zoning ordinance. Considered appropriate to build this project on this property. When the application was deemed complete, it clearly did, and I urge you to vote accordingly. Thank you for your time. Thank you John. Next is Linda, followed by Sarah Svidler. Good morning, commissioners of the Planning Commission. My name is Linda Bellamy. I am a Valley Vista resident. I have worked for the Agricultural Commissioner's office for 36 years. I worked with the farm workers directly. They're very good people and they do deserve a safe place to live. As stated in your ordinances. However, this project is completely surrounded and if not in a very high fire severity zone in April of 2022, the Board of Supervisors indicated they were

going to simply prohibit farm workers from living in very high fire severity zones. Los Angeles County prohibits farm workers living in high fire severity zones, as well as the state of California in the Health and Safety Code. In 1993, the county supervisors closed our fire station on Ventura Avenue, which now means that fire trucks have to come from Oak View down through the Arnaz Grade, over the narrow San Antonio Bridge, through Casitas Springs, which people stop the traffic constantly to cross the avenue and eventually making their way down to our housing track. It's it's a long time to get fire response to our area. During the Thomas Fire, I had two houses directly across the street from me, simply burned to the ground. I was on my phone putting out the fire from my backyard, calling the fire department, saying, hey, my house is on fire trying to get some fire support there. We know that Thomas Fire was a very, very destructive fire. However, we never know when fires going to strike. Who would have thought that Malibu would have totally burned down? Or Pacific Palisades or the Mountain Fire? Another thing I have to simply say is we do have bad air quality the entire. Whenever we had the disadvantaged community designation, we had the enviro screen screen of 75. So that basically states the poor air quality in that area. So adding over, you know, adding 527 vehicles in that area is simply not a good plan. I think the

pollutants from the cars starting every morning and every day will add to that effect. The North Ventura Avenue area says that the the the future homes in that area should should primarily reflect the character of the area, which is single family homes. That's in the 20 2040 general plan. Okay, so those are all single family homes in the North End Avenue. Okay. Well, I do have more to say, but thank you. Next is Sara Swidler followed by Henry Cake and then Leslie Levins and then Gabriel Bynon. Good morning, Chair and commissioners. My name is Sara Swidler. I want to focus on a few of the continuous items. Continuance. Excuse me. First, evacuation and emergency readiness. Since the last hearing, I spoke directly with County emergency management leadership about this corridor, specifically, emergency Services Director Patrick Maynard and VFD Division Chief Nick Cleary. Their takeaway was simple we approve and build projects and years later, emergency services are left to figure out evacuation. This is not the kind of location you want to solve after the fact. Almost the entire 33 Ventura Ave corridor is in a very high fire severity zone. Every place we build carries some level of risk, but the responsibility is to site projects in the least risky locations available, not knowingly in the most vulnerable ones. The common sense logic is black and white. This location creates public health and safety concerns. They specifically flagged limited egress and ingress and that in a real evacuation, most traffic will be pushed south towards the 101, where the options are already constrained. They also noted the shell road and onramp is tricky, with a high potential for collisions, and Stanley is also tricky, meaning the exact routes people will rely on are the routes most likely to fail when stressed. And Mr. Maynard confirmed that during major fire events, it's unlikely

resources would be available to help control traffic. Staff is proposing annual resident meetings and evacuation education, but even the emergency services perspective is that annual meetings cannot meaningfully mitigate risk without a monitoring or enforcement mechanism. Education is fine, but it doesn't change road geometry, congestion or clearance time. Second traffic and cumulative growth. This project puts high density housing at an existing bottleneck point, and high density will predictably worsen it, especially during emergencies when normal assumptions don't apply. And it's not just this project between the site and Stanley Avenue, there are additional complexes already approved by the city of Ventura, adding at least 154 units along the 33 corridor and into Oak View in Ojai. There are at least 177 new units planned in an evacuation. All of that traffic funnels through the same constrained area. That's not cumulative. Excuse me. That's cumulative impact. In plain terms, more households, same choke point, higher risk. Third on the traffic study. Screened. Screened doesn't mean irrelevant. Even if aspects of the Los or VMT review are screened or streamlined under state housing law, that doesn't make the underlying conditions go away, especially here. Exemptions under housing law are procedural. They don't magically remove real world constraints, and neither way Los and VMT are the wrong tools for the core question here. Can this bottleneck actually clear people in an emergency, or does it fail the moment conditions are stressed? Neither loss nor VMT measure evacuation performance. They don't tell you clearance time, queue failure at choke points, or what happens when one crash or closure locks the corridor. If state law allows portions of the review to be screened, so be it. But here that reads less like a warranted waiver and more like a procedural bypass. The risk doesn't disappear simply because it isn't analyzed. I urge you to deny this project unless it's significantly downsized, or the continuous items resolved in are resolved in a way that meaningfully addresses evacuation feasibility and cumulative corridor stress with enforceable measures, not just compliance check boxes. Thank you, thank you Sara. Next is

Henry, followed by Leslie Levins and then Gabriel. Good morning. I am opposed to this project for several reasons. Written in the Ventura County General Plan, it states that the county should discourage the building of homes in a very high fire severity zones, and this was signed by all the county supervisors. The abbreviated EIR, or referred to as fast tracking, is not a discouragement. It is an encouragement for the developer to continue with the process. As far as the removal of the protected trees go with the discretionary tree permit. This is not a discouragement. This is an encouragement for the developer to move forward. Is the county's thought of using the older CalFire map outlining the fire zones in which the property in question is not in a fire zone. While the citrus orchard existed, actually encouraging the developer. You can't have it both ways. If you tear out the orchard, you lose the buffer, and to construct the project, you have to tear out the trees. The original zoning of this parcel was a 40, which means agriculture exclusive 40 acres. The zoning is in place to protect the agriculture for long term farming and ranching. This zoning limits the parcel size for a minimum of 40 acres. It restricts the primary use to agriculture related activities. It's also limited. It also limits residential development

to very low density, typically one dwelling per 40 acres, with some exemptions. The developer intends to violate. Almost all of the zoning was trying to prevent. This is not discouraging the developer in any way, shape or form. It is actually encouraging the developer to move forward. I would like to know what the county has done specifically to discourage this project, like they have agreed to do in writing. If an upper level county official instructs anyone that they want to have this project push through, ask for it in writing because you have the right to refuse unlawful order. You can choose to ignore global warming really, really happening and not heed wise and prudent recommendations developed by Cal Fire, who are experts in fire science and behavior. And in the case of the county, it would literally be putting thousands of lives in harm's way. You can otherwise, you can disappoint one developer and tell him, this is absolutely not the best location for this project. Thank you. Henry, your time is up. Thank you. Next is Leslie, followed by Gabriel. Good morning, Chair Sandlin, members of the commission. My name is Leslie Levins, and I'm a fourth generation member of a family that's been farming in Ventura County for over 100 years. I'm also on the board of House Farm Workers. I urge you to accept the planning staff's recommendation to approve the Ventura Ranch Farmworker Housing application. Our family farming company, Levins Ranches LLC, grows lemons and avocados

on nearly a thousand acres of farmland in the Santa Clara River Valley and the Las Posas Valley. We are fortunate enough to be able to provide ranch housing for the 17 year round employees critical to our farming operations, but it is not feasible for us to do that for the 60 to 75 seasonal workers needed for harvest and pruning. Pruning. We don't hire seasonal workers directly, but rather through farm labor contractors who supply crews to ag operations all over the county. For the majority of the county's estimated 25 to 30,000 agricultural workers, housing opportunities must instead be found in the existing housing stock, and too often, what's available and affordable to these workers and their families is overcrowded and in substandard condition. That's why it is so exciting when an opportunity arises to create new, state of the art farmworker housing. Proposals for large projects like Ventura Ranch are rare, but they can play a key role in meeting the documented demand for affordable, high quality residential units dedicated to Ventura County's ag workers and their families. Ventura Ranch is, in fact, precisely the type of innovative, innovative project the county's Non-coastal zoning ordinance was amended to encourage during the most recent General Plan update. I urge you not to let this opportunity go to waste. Approving Ventura Ranch is the right thing to do for our county's essential agricultural workers and the businesses, such as Levins Ranches. That plays an important role in the local economy and cannot survive without them. Thank you.

Thank you. Leslie. Next is Gabriel. Thank you, Commissioner Sandlin and honorable members of the Planning Commission for allowing me the opportunity to speak in front of you today about Ventura Ranch farmworker housing. My name is Gabriel Vignone, and I'm the executive director of House farmworkers. I hope you had a chance to review the letter we submitted by email in advance of this meeting, which clearly explains the need for this housing. When I spoke before you on January 22nd, I mentioned data from the Ventura County Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan, and I noted that our Ventura County farmworkers reported spending over 48% of their income on housing. Thinking of those farmworkers, I would like to emphasize again today why Ventura Ranch is needed and how it offers a great opportunity to provide them affordable housing. To do so, I'm going to share a story of Ventura County resident who's been a farmworker for over 20 years, working mostly with citrus and avocado. She and her family of eight shared a one bedroom apartment in Santa Paula for over 30 years as her children aged and they moved out. Her family sized dwindled, but still to four in a one bedroom when she received notice from her landlord that they were going to sell the apartments she had long thought of as her home for life. She reached out to house farm workers, and we were able to connect her to a local developer through our affordable Housing Resource fair. I'm happy to report that as of two months ago, she is housed in affordable housing meant for farmworkers in a place that she can afford and live comfortably in. Here in Ventura County. And that's thanks to units dedicated for farmworker occupancy that are affordable. There is an undeniable need for affordable farmworker housing, and we believe that Ventura Ranch will

play an important role in providing that and addressing the documented needs for our essential members of the community. We hope that you reach the same conclusion and become a part of the next successful affordable housing story. Thank you. Thank you Gabriel. The next three is Laura Swenson, David Swenson, and then Pete Swab. My name is Laura Swenson, and I live in the Valley Vista tract. I have many concerns regarding the Ventura Ranch development, but here are the ones that concern me the most. This project would not be moving forward if it was presented in 2025, due to the very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation, I find it difficult to believe that the safety of a thousand or more future Ventura Ranch residents, plus the residents of the Valley Vista tract and Ortonville, is not of major concern and rests solely on this paperwork technicality. Most of Ventura County may be considered in a very high fire zone, but not all of it backs right up to thousands of acres of highly flammable chaparral brush and trees. As this proposed project does. Two Valley Vista tract homes burned to the ground during the Thomas Fire, and the remaining 250 plus homes were threatened. You were not there to witness firsthand what was happening. The yard of a neighbor's home was on fire. My husband and I hosed the roof and yard down, and kept their home from burning long before the fire department was available to arrive. I can attest to the traffic congestion on highway 33 and Ventura Avenue during the Thomas Fire. An additional

500 plus vehicles could bring evacuation traffic on those already congested routes to a standstill. First responders may or may not be able to navigate the gridlock endangering lives and homes. Ventura Water issued three separate letters October 2023, March 2024, April 2024, each stating that this project requires new urban water services, new four inch meters, abandonment of the agricultural meter, a water service agreement, a water system assessment and Lafco discretionary approval. Those are urban services and saw explicitly prohibits urban services for exempt agricultural housing. The catastrophic Palisades and Altadena fires are examples of the dangers of building in very high fire danger zones. Even with the required clearances with were there no lessons learned from these disasters? Please take my concerns into consideration and do not risk the well-being of our Westside communities. Thank you. Thank you Laura. Next is David Swensen, followed by Pete Schwab. Good morning. Good morning. Planning commission I'm David Swensen, Valley Vista track. And I'm here to remind the planning commission of the direction of future development of the highway 33 corridor and the adjacent North county north, Ventura Avenue. You know, it has changed now to preserving

the landscape, not developing it. Okay. The Ventura Ranch project at 4884 right along the highway 33 corridor. That's the gateway to the Ojai Valley. Okay. So the following has been done to preserve, already been done to preserve the landscape. On January 16th, 2026. Excuse me. Ventura Land Trust acquired the Petrochem site on Crooked Palm Road. That's 100 acres. 100 acres. And this is one quarter mile from the Ventura Ranch project. Okay. Number two, the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy acquired Rancho Canada Larga, 6500 acres historic rangeland. And this is one mile away from the proposed Ventura Ranch. Number three, the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy. Excuse me. Also acquired the Ventura River preserve, and it's called the Parkway Preserve. And it's 28 acres. And this is only a half a mile away from the, you know, proposed Ventura Ranch. And just to go on to say that this whole area, it's a continuous landscape that supports wildlife movement, climate resilience and the health of all the communities around it. This is not an area suited for construction of 320 units of

apartments. Thank you. Thank you David. Next is Pete Schwab. Good morning. Commission, Pete Schwab I live in Valley Vista tract. I noticed the applicant focused in this morning on the subject of fire safety. And I think for good cause, because it's the biggest concern that we have. Let me state for the record, everybody I know who is not in favor of this project, we are 100% in favor of farm workers. We believe they should have housing just as good as anybody else. They deserve a place to live and be able to afford the rent. However, we believe it should be a safe environment. We've seen the past. What has happened during the Thomas Fire last meeting in January, we heard from Ventura County Sheriff's Department and it didn't seem like he was leaning that this was a very good idea because of the evacuation and the danger involved. We've seen lately, just with the local rains, what happens when people are driving up and down the 33 and roads get flooded and you just can't access it? Besides the construction, if you look at the two lane 33 highway and the where where people are supposed to evacuate from Kenyatta Larga shell or all the way even down to Stanley, just normal traffic right now is gridlock every day. So I'm just asking the commission. Another thing. Just because the zoning has changed,

it was a high fire hazard, but now it's extreme. Well, that's a fact that you can't change. And just because the applicant applied and proposed this project when it was a lower rating of fire hazard, you have to consider it's extreme. Now we saw what happened with the Thomas fire. We've seen what happened with the Palisades and the Eaton fires and the chaos that goes on. They can talk all they want about a planned evacuation. And we'll get these people out and these people out. However, when there's a fire breathing down your neck and smoke is encompassing the whole area, people panic. You're not going to have an organized evacuation. And so I'm pleading with you guys to turn this project down at its present location merely because of the safety factor. I would ask you and the applicant if they could look back and they're able to build this in, something happens. Are they going to be willing to live with the possibility of people getting injured, killed, or maimed because they wanted this project to go through? And I'm asking all of you commissioners to think about that, too. Do you want to look back and say, boy, that wasn't a very good decision. Your time is up. Thank you. Yes, chair and commissioners, those were the 15 first batch. Would you like to take a break or shall shall I continue? Let's take a five minute break. Okay. Thank you. All right. And and if you're in

the three hour parking area, relocate your car. Okay. Okay. All the way. That's the three hour. Oh, I need to move this. Okay. So. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Oh, I know I have that one. I have that I think

need to check myself and, and I don't want to get. The, but the. Oh wow. I'm. Okay. That's great. Yeah. All right. Okay. Great. Yeah. That's. Yeah. Thank you. All right, I feel bad. No that's right. That's all you can. Yes, please. Yeah. Yeah. So right on. All right. So this is this is just showing. Oh yes.

This is. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you. Second. Second question. That's good. Yeah. You. Please not there. Are things like this. Change. Yeah. So. This is. This. If you

want to give. That's kind of how some of us are. Saying. Right. H you. Yeah I teach you H zero. Yeah. English. I know, thank you. For all the Farm Bureau guys. Yeah. They give it a try and get out of it. They're lucky enough to even get. Uyghur. On these. And just. Use. Shared between those two locations, which is the one that. And those are. That's

what we're giving. Yeah. No. So. That that. Thank you. Sorry. You're running around and getting. Some pop up I can. Yeah. Yeah. There's still time. Yeah. That's all. I look at. Oh for. Yeah yeah. Oh yeah. You've been trying okay. Oh great. Yeah I knew it. Yeah. Especially when you start. Yeah. Yeah. She, she knew all that. She. She tell them where they were on. Yeah. It's time to go. Yeah. Yeah. Three minutes. It's not. Of course. I think I've had a lot of things. Oh yeah.

Yeah. We don't have extra. Well I need two more one. Yeah I, I only have one, but. Okay. So you have one more. Then they'll just get a copy for the. You know I don't need that. I just want to see. Sounds good. Right. Yeah. The French. Yeah actually.

Okay. I'd like to now open back up the public hearing Secretary Luce, do we have any more public comments on this item? Yes. Chair. Yes, we do have. We do have more public speakers. Actually, we have a total of 30, so five from zoom and then the remaining ten from, you know, from from the in-person one. Okay. So we have a total of 15 speakers still correct? Yes. And I see that we got some letters up here submitted to as well to us recently. Okay. Let's proceed with the next speaker, please. Chair Sandlin I think director planning Director award would be announcing those three new three letters that we received today during the hearing. Yes. Thank you. The three additional letters that have been distributed, one is from Jackson Piper, one is from Jeff, Jeffrey Lambert from the Housing Authority, and the other letter is from Miss Carrie Glenn. And then in addition, I have one comment card that was provided by Helen Thompson, resident. This area is designated farmland. There are fewer and fewer open spaces. Maybe it could be better used as a large community garden area for the residents of Ventura City and packed against packed into apartments, this could be a place to refresh oneself. Open space. It's a shame to put people into an area where they aren't close to

their work or other services. There is one bus per hour. No grocery, not a place for people with. Limited incomes. Thank you. All right, Chair Sandlin, here's the second batch of the public speakers. First is Carrie Glenn, followed by Leticia Ramos Anselmo and then Peggy Gertman. Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Carrie Glenn. I live on East Bounds Road, directly behind the proposed Ventura Farm Ranch worker housing project. Sorry, I want to begin first with the most critical issue. This project is located in a very high fire hazard severity zone, approving high density housing over with over 1000 residents in this zone is dangerous and negligent. We have raised this concern repeatedly. The designation has not changed. The fire risk has not changed the infrastructure. And the one way in and one way out has not changed the fire risk. And the and it's unnecessary and irresponsible to put a large density project in this location. Second, the direct and permanent impact to our homes. This project places 18 buildings over 35ft tall, less than 80ft from our property lines. The information I submitted, I wanted to show you the pictures so you understand what it is we're talking about the tree here, and this is where the first building would be. This white fence is the is my backyard fence. Residents will have a clear view into our homes and yards. We'll lose our privacy and enjoyment of our property. Will be. We all absorb traffic, noise, street lights, daily activity of more than 1000 residents, along with six years of phase construction. You may label this Nimby, but I

guarantee you every one of you would feel the same way as we do if this was happening behind your home. This site is also designated farmland of statewide importance and functions as a non-designated wildlife corridor. Once paved, that land and habitat are gone forever. Now let's talk about property rights. At the last hearing, Chair Sandlin expressed strong support for private property rights, but the principle appears to only apply to a developer's valley. Vista has existed since 1958. What about the property rights of the homeowners who invested their life savings here on November 23rd, 2020? Excuse me? November 8th, 2023, I attended the Developer's Community meeting in Oak View. The room was packed. Since then, I have spoken with Supervisor Levier multiple times, met with county staff, and submitted letters to this commission. Yet I must ask again at what point will Valley Vista neighborhood truly be listened to? 249 protest letters were submitted from approximately 250 homes in our tract, along with countless objections from Oak View and Ojai residents. The level of opposition is extraordinary. It should matter how many commissioners have actually stood on the project site. Reviewing plans on paper is not the same as seeing reality in person. I respectfully urge you to deny this project as proposed. At a minimum, it is dangerous to. For this project to move forward, you must require no less than a 100 yard natural buffer between our homes and this development. This would. This would guarantee a legitimate fire break and protect existing residents. Before you vote, please visit the project site or at least look at the photos that I submitted so you understand the impact of what it's going to have to the neighborhood and to the surrounding communities in an event in event of an eventual emergency. Thank you. Very. Next is Letty Letici Ramos, followed by Peggy Girtman. Good morning. My name is Lutzi Ramos

Anselmo. I live in the Valley Vista tract, which is located immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed Ventura Ranch. As has been mentioned during the Thomas Fire's two homes in Valley Vista burned to the ground. My home caught fire and luckily it was contained and there were embers flying everywhere, and the neighbors with hoses saved the homes, including mine. In January, the January 22nd meeting, it was noted that the property for the proposed Ventura Ranch could not be considered. Excuse me, there was only one fire engine for 255 homes in our area. I wanted to point that out to you. In the January 22nd meeting, it was noted that the property for the proposed Ventu Ranch could not be considered a high fire hazard severity zone because Ventura Ranch Partners had made their application in 2023, and that specific area was not designated as such until January 20th July of 2025. Nevertheless, in light of the fire that did occur in Valley Vista, and when you take into account the safety of future residents at Venture Ranch, you absolutely have to consider an EIR to get specific, adverse, quantifiable impact information. In Sequa, it is proposed that Ventura Ranch have two access points to Ventura Avenue and a third evacuation route through a gated vehicle emergency vehicle access road in the Valley Vista Road. However, Valley Vista has only one point of access in an emergency, the streets in Valley Vista would

be overwhelmed just from our residents trying to evacuate. Our safety would be compromised by the added vehicles. If this project were to be approved, then the Ventura Ranch should have their own separate exits. Without the ability to access the Valley Vista streets. Yes, housing for farmworkers is essential, but not at this site. This project should not be approved for the safety of all involved. Thank you for the ability to speak. Thank you. Let's see. Next is Peggy Goodman. Goodman then followed by Emma Medina, Brian Schumacher. Schumacher. Schumacher and then Zulay. Lucero. I'd like to respectfully request a couple of extra minutes because I have some pictures I need to show. Would that be possible? Oh. I'd have to deny that just because we have, we'd have to give everybody else on this topic the same amount of time. But if you'd like to show the pictures, we'd like to, you can bring them up here and we'd check out the pictures. Okay. And we'll start your time after that. Okay. How do I do that? Just bring them up here. What they are. This one shows how many. Okay, okay. All right, well, I kind of need to show you what they are to explain them. You can explain and then pass them along up here afterwards so we can check them out after your speech. We can start your time. All right. I want to talk to you about. I agree that public safety is the most important issue. And they are looking for an objective, quantifiable

issue. So I want to talk to you about the Shell Road on ramps, because those are absolutely inadequate. What I want to show you here is, you know, most of the time when you have an on ramp, you have a merge area. So and there's like several little lines. So that tells you how much time, you know to merge. There's two merge lines. And then as you go across the bridge and you have to pretty much have merged by the time you get to the end of the bridge or you're going to get run off the road, or if you try to stop you endanger getting hit from behind the whole on ramp is inadequate or inadequate, especially when you consider extra traffic, which this project would entail. So here's pictures of extra traffic. And also I want to point out when you're coming up, this is going toward the 101. When you're coming up and trying to merge, you can't see very well the traffic coming because of the curvature of the road. So the whole area, that whole onramp situation totally inadequate. And it is quantifiable because I've never seen an on ramp with two little lines for merging. And then you have to immediately merge. And there's no. There's really no time to do it. So let me read this because I'm a better writer than than I am a speaker. So after examining the traffic feasibility study, I didn't see anything addressing the dangerous on ramps on both the

north and southbound ramps onto the 33. As you can see, there are two lanes in each direction. However, at shell, both north and southbound southbound merge lanes are entirely too short to merge safely with the adjacent adjacent right lanes, especially with the increase in traffic from the proposed traffic on north or southbound shell, there are seven seven feet merge lines, after which one must merge quickly to the end of the bridge. With the increase of traffic, those entering 33 will have to merge to quickly merge, stop and risk being hit from behind or run off the road. At 65 miles an hour. It takes about two seconds to make that decision. Added traffic would cause more accidents. In addition to seeing the. In addition to seen in this photo during due to the curvature of the. Thank you Peggy, your time is up. Like I said, this is a health and safety issue and they asked for. Quantifiable reasons why this project should be denied. I wish I would have been able to present more. Thank you Peggy, we'll take your pictures up here to look at them. If you'd like, I can. I can take that. All right. Next would be Hema gudina, followed by Brian and then by Salette. Hello. Planning commission. My name's Hema godina. I'm a County of Ventura public servant. I am reserving my right to be here today at this hearing. As a private citizen, I currently work for the assessor's office. All the following statements

I'm about to make, along with a PowerPoint presentation were created by me. They are not to be understood in any way, shape or form as official policy or procedures of the Assessor's Office. The following presentation are my own personal opinions. I submitted this slide presentation. It was 54 slides long, but due to time constraints I had to reduce it. Unfortunately, you know it wasn't accepted to take my shortened version. You're welcome to just page through the slide show. So I'm just going to page through it as I'm talking because of time constraints. Deny the project. The applicant's proposed project location and floor plans are in direct violation of the United Nations definition of adequate housing. It is defined as more than just four walls and a roof. According to the UN, adequate housing provides a proper location for jobs and schools. It ensures safety for environmental threats and habitable space that provides dignity. The applicant's project location on 4884 North Ventura Avenue is at a minimum one hour drive for farmworkers to and from work, and where the majority of agricultural fields are found in Oxnard Plains and Somis. Further, 4884 North Ventura Avenue has no high schools nearby. As stressed by Director of Office of Emergency Services of Interior County Patrick Maynard, the project site will need to rely on very limited ingress and egress roads. Being North Ventura Avenue, Shell Road, Stanley Avenue and has confirmed that those roads would be used to evacuate residents during a wildfire disaster. North Ventura Avenue and Shell Road are straddled with numerous active gas and oil wells in a very in a designated very high fire hazard zone. On a rare

occasion, they may explode during a fire wildfire evacuation. Due to the area having unyielding and constrictive roads, it would be an extremely deadly and hazardous area during a fire evacuation, causing pandemonium. All residents on North Ventura Avenue are at higher risk of death due to active oil wells and gas having the capacity to explode during a wildfire. The applicant's proposed floor plans are not dignified. The plans are in line with existing Somis Ranch farmworker affordable housing when compared to Csuci student housing studio apartments, Csuci offers more living space per square footage per person by 376ft■!S. Considering that te considering the fact that the average farmworker household are comprised of five, your time is up. Thank you. All right. Next is Brian Schumacher and then Lucero, followed by D Peterson. Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Brian Schumacher. I am advocacy and community impact manager for Autism Society, Ventura County. I'm speaking today on behalf of our dedicated Advocacy committee, which reviews land use and policy decisions to ensure that individuals with disabilities and their families are included in decisions that affect their lives. So we're here again today in strong support of item six, a the Ventura Ranch Farmworker Housing project. At SVC, we recognize affordable housing as not simply a development issue, but as a health, safety and dignity issue. Ventura County is agricultural community depends on farmworkers preserving agricultural land while failing to house the human beings who sustain it is neither realistic nor responsible. We cannot have agricultural land without agricultural workers. Over the course of this process, concerns about fire safety,

environmental impact and infrastructure have all been raised. These are serious considerations and each has been addressed by your staff and contractors. Denying regulated housing does not eliminate risk, it perpetuates it. Many farmworkers are currently are currently living in overcrowded, unregulated and unsafe conditions, often in the same high risk fire zones as the rest of the county. Planned housing with enforceable safety standards provides oversight, mitigation, and accountability if there are conditions necessary to ensure safety, the county has the authority to impose and enforce them. Safety is not a reason to reject housing. It is a reason to approve housing with appropriate protections in place. Farmworker families include children, adults and elders with disabilities, as well as individuals with medical, mobility and sensory needs. Documented research, lived experience, and even common sense all demonstrate that well-regulated housing improves health outcomes, educational access, and overall community stability. These benefits, however, are only fully realized when housing is intentionally and universally designed to meet the needs of all residents. We again encourage the inclusion of accessible units and amenities within the project. Design. At this stage, the need for farmworker housing is not in dispute. The choice before you is simple. Well, Ventura County provides safe, regulated housing with appropriate oversight or leave vulnerable families without a safe place to call home. Autism Society Ventura County strongly urges approval of this project. Thank you for your time and for your service. Thank you Brian. Next is Juliet Lucero, followed by D Peterson and then Mark Thompson. Hi. Good morning. My name is Juliet Lucero, and I'm speaking on behalf of Cos. For more than two decades, Cos has organized alongside farmworkers and immigrant communities across Ventura County who are disproportionately impacted by housing and stability. These

conditions are not accidental. They are the result of long lasting policies and market forces that have failed to provide safe, affordable housing for the workers who sustain our agricultural economy. I have personally worked with and organized farmworkers for over ten years. During that time, I have seen firsthand how housing and stability impacts families, children struggling in school, parents living in overcrowded or unsafe conditions. My work focuses on connecting Ventura County families to affordable housing and farmworker families consistently face the great barriers. At the last meeting, it was mentioned that it would be important for farmworkers to be present so the community could hear directly from them. While that would be ideal, we cannot delay action. We must move this project forward to ensure families have access to safe, affordable housing. Now, this morning, actually, I spoke with farmworker family who lost their rental home because it could no longer afford $3,000 monthly rent. There are now living in their car with their three year old child, the Ventura Ranch Farmworker Housing Project offers a real solution by providing permanent, well-designed housing, near jobs and essential services, it will support healthier families, improve children's educational outcomes, and strengthen our agricultural workforce. Farmworkers are essential to our community and are the backbone of Ventura County agricultural economy. Approving this project is about dignity, fairness, and honoring the workers who make this county thrive. On behalf of cows, I urge you to stand with our community and support this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next is D Peterson, then Mark Thompson, and then Barbara McCrea Ortiz. Good morning commissioners. My name is D

Peterson. My property is right. Right in my backyard is where this project is going to go in my backyard. Literally. The project cannot be considered a Ceqa exempt due to all of the concerns presented here today. It requires multiple approvals mandated by county and state legislators. As you know, this project is in an extreme fire zone. I ask you to deny this project based on the people who would potentially. Have lived their lives along with the lose their lives along with the other residents who could lose their lives as well. In the farm worker housing, I found out that my home is to be considered part of the project's fire buffer zone. If so, someone didn't do the calculations during the Thomas fire. We would have lost our home if not for a very observant police officer and a few of our neighbors who took up our hose and put our house out, we were out of state. This building project is a multi-story, high, high level. It'll be a wall. We were even told they're going to put in a retainer wall. That's going to block our entire view that we all paid for all of the residents. Our view should be protected with a quintessential we were here first litigation defense residents and others concerned need to join together to proceed with litigation. If this is approved, I would like to ask the Planning Commission to consider our lives as quantified and not just a check mark on a document. I'd like to ask why, if this extreme fight,

if this is an extreme fire zone, which it is, I feel that this decision. Has already been decided. By saying earlier that this project has to be approved without even hearing any of our concerns. Also, anyone can. Has anyone considered the high dam if it breaks or the water storage at the top of our hill if it breaks? There was an emergency evacuation over the PA system in our neighborhood and it said evacuate. Evacuate. We were all scared to death. We didn't. What is that? So we would have had 8 to 12 minutes to get out. Please tell me that we would be able to get out in a fire situation. My family lived through that fire. My neighbors lived through that fire. And I ask you, please reconsider this. Please don't allow it to go through. Thank you'd. Next is Mark Thompson, followed by Barbara macri Ortiz and then Luis Lampert. Thank you, commissioners, for allowing me to give my opinion on this project. I bought a house in 1988, in Valley Vista, and since that time we've suffered with attacks from Petrochem plant, Weldon Canyon, mudslides, floods and debris flows, and most recently, the Thomas Fire. My wife and I sat in our backyard and watched a palm tree go up in flames for over a week after the main fire went through that area. It was like a Roman candle burning off.

I cared deeply for California's farm worker families, and I want them to have good housing. But I have to say, after listening to the scant reports on environmental and traffic mitigation evacuation issues, there's no standard. I find it that it's just not the right place. It's a very condensed. And what the one woman said about if you stand on that property and look around, I can't even imagine 18 buildings on that property. It's that small and it's sandwiched right in between single family houses. So I think that's one of the issues. And I worry about their families, the kids that grow up in that ranch will eventually become teens, and they'll want to go into town. And there's no sidewalks, literally from Seneca coming north on Ventura Avenue, there's very few sidewalks along there, and there is a bike path along the road. But that's terribly dangerous for for people, you know, that are walking the bike path that's, you know, the main bike path near the river is not that easy to get to from that area. You have to cross the field that runs along the the the old movie place that was right there that I guess is now Patagonia again or something. But anyway, I really think that there's so much other property closer to town that could be considered for this project that I just don't understand. I think it's going to be very dangerous for the children getting into and from school, and also for the residents on upon an emergency evacuation. So I really do oppose it for that reason. No other I want to see the farm workers get good housing and they don't have to pay, you know, 50% of their annual income and rent

somewhere. So anyway, thank you very much. Thank you. Mark. Next is Barbara Marie Ortiz and then Luis Lampert. Chair Sandlin and commissioners, I've been a affordable housing attorney and advocate for 35 years in this county. And I have to say, change is hard. Every project that I have been involved in, it has always been we're not against the people that are going to live there, but it's just the wrong place. I have heard that for 35 years. I have heard a litany of horribles of the things that would happen if this project was approved. And I have lived in the community for those 35 years. And you know what? That litany of horribles hasn't happened. Change is hard. But that doesn't mean that we have to accept just a solid state of no movement. You know, we are we are in a place here. The people are so fearful that they're not looking at any of the advantages that this project is going to actually bring to them, and that's really something. Also, they're not looking at the quality of the housing that's going to be built under the standards that it's going to be built under. It's going to be some of the safest housing in this county because it's under the new fire. Building codes. So, you know, we need to we need to look at this. I mean, in terms of we need to look at it realistically and we need to get out of this out of fear that this is going to happen

and that is going to happen. You know, climate change is here. We have to live with it. Does that mean we just shut down life? We have to evolve, make better choices, make better laws to protect. And that's what we're going to be on the forefront of doing in this, in this particular project. You know, they didn't say don't rebuild where the trauma Thomas Fire burnt or the Palisades. They're encouraging people to rebuild. Just rebuild to better standards. I've heard from a couple of the speakers that there was actually from the Thomas fire houses burnt down in this. Tract. So what are we saying? Should those people, should those places be allowed to build? Why are the people not moving if it's so dangerous from all these things? That's those are questions. I mean, that's the other side of the coin. You know, we're here in this country, there's private property rights. You heard the first speaker talk about private property rights. Your time is up. It's for the owner, not for other people to dictate what those rights are. It's the one who owns the land, has the rights. Thank you, thank you. Next is Luis Lampert. Please. Good morning, commissioners Luis Lampara, Ventura County Colab. Over the years, I've heard this Planning Commission talk frequently about the importance of agriculture and sustaining the county's agricultural industry.

But agriculture in Ventura County cannot survive on the abstract. It cannot survive on talking points or inspirational words claiming to support AG. It can only survive if there is a stable agricultural agricultural workforce willing and able to work here, and that workforce needs housing. Our workers are facing flat gross revenues while expenses continue to skyrocket. Some crops, including lemons margins, are currently in the negative workforce. Instability only compounds that pressure. Farmworker housing is not social policy. It is economic infrastructure necessary for agriculture's very survival. Many speakers have said this is not the right place, but it is a fact that viable sites for farmworker housing in Ventura County are extremely limited between zoning constraints, infrastructure requirements, lafco fire standards and state housing law. Very few sites in this county can meet all applicable permitting and regulatory criteria. This site does. I also want to point out that a few of you commissioners yourselves, live in locations designated as very high fire risk, and where emergency evacuation is a significant challenge and a concern, the sites where you choose to live are not perfect. So the real question today is not whether this site is perfect. No site is. The question before you today is whether the project complies with objective standards and applicable law. And as the staff report concludes, it does. If this planning Commission really means what it has said

repeatedly over the last many years that you are serious about sustaining agriculture in Ventura County, you must also be serious about permitting housing for the people who sustain it. We urge you to approve the staff recommendations. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Sandlin. Those are the remaining public speakers in person. And now I will be moving to the zoom speakers. So the first on my list is Jackson Piper. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. Hi. Thank you. My name is Jackson Piper. I'm one of the co-leads of Ventura County Yimby, which formed in 2019 to advocate for more housing and better housing throughout Ventura County. I know I've said so before, but I wanted to re-emphasize that I know it is not a perfect location for everyone. However, given the constraints of Ventura County, the fact that almost all of it is within a very high fire or high fire hazard zone, the fact that we have chosen to embrace our agricultural and open space protections in order to keep Ventura County the beautiful place it is to live, and the fact that for the agricultural part of that, we absolutely need to enable our workforce to live in sufficient, adequate, decent housing that does respect their dignity and does provide enough living space for each inhabitant of that housing, and that we currently do not do so anywhere near the scale of what is necessary for for the tens of thousands of agricultural workers that are

in Ventura County and their families. I think it's imperative to embrace housing projects like this that are 100% affordable, that are set aside for the agricultural workforce and other vulnerable populations. And while I get that the community, especially the community around where this project is planned, is concerned about it, I also feel that this project has taken a lot of pains to provide greater fire protection and greater preparedness in the event of a fire. The fact that in the Wildfire Evacuation Study document, appendix one, that that was in the materials provided for this meeting. Basically, the current conditions are that 1095 vehicles would be evacuated, and then the project would add an additional around 100 additional 565. The difference in evacuation times for those two would be. Maximum of 43 minutes. Under current conditions, an estimated maximum of 58 under the conditions with the project included. And given that the document says that an evacuation warning is given when the disaster is estimated at two hours away, the whole community should just prepare to evacuate and be aware at that evacuation warning stage. I don't see that there is reason to reject a project like this, and in fact, there's no legal basis to reject it based on the fire hazard. Thank you, thank you. Jackson. Next is Helen McGrath. Good morning. My

name is Helen McGrath. I farm in Fillmore and Somis, but I'm a resident here in the city of Ventura and have two children. Inventory unified schools. Having listened to the recommendations and due diligence that was done since the last hearing, I hope that this project is approved to move forward today. I'm incredibly disheartened, disheartened, yet sadly not surprised by the nature of the opposition at the previous hearing and comments being made today. There are some classically cliche Nimby not in my backyard statements, some thinly veiled xenophobia, and it feels at times that folks are just grasping at straws. The claim by the opposition that they're concerned about a high fire zone is almost laughable. As I mentioned at the previous meeting, 96% of the state of California is in a high fire zone, and all of those proposing this project currently live in one new construction is much more likely to withstand a fire than any of the wood framed homes that are built throughout the city of Ventura, including my own. Having had to evacuate both the Thomas Fire and our foreman and his family from the mountain fires, I know as a layperson that 300 residents is not the issue to an effective evacuation. Effective VC alerts, a coordinated plan, clear communication from OHS is what is required, as well as the assurance that all evacuation routes are open and accessible. In the case of an emergency, OHS is absence today implies it's not a major concern for them and it shouldn't be. I was also disappointed to hear a couple commissioners ask questions about schooling and busing and walkability when I, as a resident, can address those concerns immediately. Ventura Unified is experiencing under enrollment and has a complete capacity to absorb students into the two elementary schools, the middle school nearby, or anywhere

within the district. With bussing concerns about where will people grocery shop? Well, where do you grocery shop? How do your kids get to school? What is your commute to work like? These arguments border on ridiculous. As Mr. Maguire stated, there are no other barriers to approving this project. Traffic analysis has been done. OAS services have the capacity and resources to create an effective evacuation plan for new and current residents. The agricultural sector is the backbone of Ventura County, and we wouldn't function without our employees. Many farmworkers have been here longer than some of the residents of neighboring communities opposing this project, and they also want to make Ventura County their home. Our employees and their families deserve access to affordable, safe housing. Having watched the development of the Somis Ranch project, it is clear that the demand for this housing is high. There were thousands of applications for that project, and there's a clear standard for vetting and ensuring that this housing goes to employees of farming operations. Every question that was asked today from your staff, your counsel and the applicant have been sufficiently answered. I urge you to the Commission to approve this project today. Thank you. Thank you. Helen. The next person in line is Jesus Marmolejo. Casas. You're next. Okay. If Jesus is not ready, the next one is Kathleen

Suarez. Okay. Next after Kathleen is Francine Smith. Okay, Francine. Your next. Hi. I live in Valley Vista track. During the Thomas fire, the people above Stanley Stanley is just backlogged like it is. And that off ramp, the people north of that were coming this way. And the shell area that we've talked about. ERA keeps putting up more drilling every week. They have the money, they could help fix that. But people from the north side of Stanley, they were all coming toward the shell. People in Ortonville and us were coming above. It was 20 hours later before we even had the fire department show up. I had a neighbor knock on my door. You talk about education, what are you going to tell them? To be educated, to knock on everybody's door? This whole thing is also a conflict of interest because as half of the people there, they work in some respect to the government. I don't understand. If you're a farm worker coming from Mexico on a visa, you're supposed to be provided housing by your farm. So are the taxpayers doing this? And I understand the density bonuses that go into things and the pension funds are involved. And I, I work for Oxnard Union High School District as a sub. I went last month and today I'll be out there where the the Farm workers project in Camarillo, right up against the strawberry farms. There's been multiple lawsuits from Oxnard Union High

School District about poisoning from the farms around Oxnard High, Rio Mesa, etc. I don't understand the visa thing. I put up a homeless person over the holidays. Many of our local people are struggling with houses. And so this is a you know, it's all these people on one side of this program here. They're all connected to government programs, and it's a conflict of interest, whether you're a union member and a right to work state. You know, it's there's a big conflict of interest. The Thomas fire. By the time I, I went to bed, I was concerned. My daughter's aunt lives in Santa Paula. Her husband worked for Limoneira for many, many years. My daughter's generation, I'm hearing they're saving their grandparents farms because avocados are in demand. Why didn't saw work? Why didn't somebody buy this and put in avocado trees and save this property and save our view? Every day I go to pick up my mail and if it's a good day, I see a view, little view of the islands from here. This will be gone when they put in the when when the flood happened in 69, bounds was the entrance, not Norway. It went straight down and there was another entrance on the other side of the neighborhood. Put that back. Bring us back. Thank you. Francine, your time is up. Next is Andy Conley. Hi there. Dear Chairperson Sandlin and fellow commissioners, my name is Andy Conley. I am the president and CEO of the West Ventura County Business Alliance. And myself and the board overwhelmingly support the Ventura Ranch Farmworker Farm Worker housing project. Our alliance is comprised of more than 500

local businesses representing nearly 50,000 local employees, from large agribusiness and food processing plants to small growers, equipment dealers and logistics firms. So our support reflects the collective voice of Ventura County's entire commercial community. The need for this development is absolute farmworkers power and agricultural sector that generates billions in revenue and feeds markets nationwide. Yet there is a lack of safe, affordable and stable housing in Ventura County. Farm Worker Housing Study surveyed 40 agricultural employers. 77% said that the current housing is insufficient in 94. Expect a stable, growing labor need over the next five years, so this is without a doubt much needed here within our county. And so without dedicated housing, the county risk of labor shortfall that could jeopardize the entire farming ecosystem. And in general, housing is desperately needed for Ventura County for all sectors. And this project will set a great example for that within the county. This project also creates a direct nexus for businesses to improve the local economy. This will hire local contractors, tradespeople and labor crews. The development will keep wages, inventory, county and strengthen our skilled workforce pipeline. A reliable housing base will enable farms and related businesses to attract and retain the workers that they so desperately need, desperately need, and protecting productivity and profitability across the region. So with that, we ask the Planning Commission to please look beyond the opposition's harmful rhetoric, which claims this project is unnecessary and urge you to please approve this project without delay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Andy. Okay. So it's Chair Sandlin and Commissioner, those

are all the public speakers we have for this project. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Lewis, with the applicant like to provide any rebuttal? No rebuttal. Would staff like to present any closing remarks? Yes. Chair Sandlin, we just wanted to follow up on a couple of comments that were made specifically regarding air pollution related impacts. Dust control measures are included in the conditions of approval. There's a condition number A21 that addresses dust control. And if there is a dust issue that's raised, that would be a potential violation of an air pollution control district rule. And there's a requirement that the phone number be posted on the site. So if someone does observe that there's excessive dust, they can contact Air Pollution Control District and they'll send out an inspector on that. Another item that came up on air quality has to do with the Valley fever. In talking with the air Pollution Control district staff, they mentioned that this site is not considered to have a high potential for Valley fever because typically that occurs in drier areas with undisturbed soils. And as you may recall, this site was formerly in irrigated agriculture. And then tier four equipment. I understand in speaking with air pollution Control district staff that there there is adequate commercial availability of tier four equipment, and so that will minimize the emissions associated with construction. And all of the construction and operational emissions were modeled under Cal e mod, which is the California state model for air pollution impact analysis. And it was determined that there would be no significant air quality impacts as a result of the project. So

that's all I had to add. But if you have any specific questions, I can respond to those as well. Thank you, Mr. Kroger. I will now close the public hearing. Any discussion amongst the Commission questions concerns. Would you like to state a motion? I would like to make a motion to approve the project. We have a motion from Commissioner Cushing to approve the project. I'd like to second that. We have a second from Commissioner Ayala. Secretary Luce, I would I would like to be able to make a comment before we take a vote. I have been in property management and real estate development for 40 years. Developers do have a responsibility, and that is to make sure that you mitigate, you mitigate issues and you conform. Unfortunately, because of the State Accountability Act, we have stripped away that requirement, except for the safety element. I've done a lot of looking into this, and unfortunately, I still do not see where the safety issue has been mitigated. There is more than likely going to be a gridlock issue that happens in the event of a fire or some other catastrophic situation. I've read through multiple people's declarations of what has happened in the past, and

we can rightly assume that it can happen in the future. I personally live in an area that is affected by limited ingress and egress, and I had to fight with the county in order to get the issues mitigated, to protect us, to be able to get out of our property safely. I don't believe the developer has come before us with something that mitigated those, those concerns. And I believe as a planning commissioner, I have a right to sit here and say I cannot support a project that I seem, that I have determined and has not been mitigated to be safe for all people, including the farmworkers that would live there. I, I would hate to say yes to a project and then have to live with the circumstances. Should somebody die or be injured because of my decision to say yes, I wanted my comments on record for why I am going to have to say no to this development. Thank you. Commissioner. Thank you, Commissioner Kessler. Commissioner Boysen 100% agree. Maggie. Common sense and tells me that this is an unsafe place to put density housing. I understand we need farmworkers housing and totally support it. I understand. Also the situation that exists out there with limited what I think, and you can call it subjective, but in my opinion limited ways to get out, especially in a panic situation. I agree, and I've heard it over and over again

that the ramp at Schell Road on and off, or at least on, is substandard. The ramp at Stanley is substandard. I think Caltrans would would agree with that. I don't believe there's anything in the works to change that in the near future. So 100% agree. I think it's disappointing that that we have a project that's really needed, and in order to get it, we're going to use the housing state laws to bypass, I think, good design strips away from us. The ability that we typically have on a project where we can push for a better development here, we can't really do that. And I find that disappointing that that's those are my comments. Chair. Chair. Stanley, before you do take your vote, I wanted to interject two points, one, to fold in the errata memo of today that included the revision to one of the conditions. That condition was be 21. You also heard Commissioner Alar describe the ability to have it in the appropriate language, and that could be an added provision to that same condition to make that clear. And I heard that the applicant was supportive of doing it. If you wanted to incorporate that into your motion. Thank you. Thank you, director Board. And I'm sorry, just one clarification. Just for the record, Commissioner Cushing, I assume, and if you could clarify by your motion, you meant to for the commission to approve all staff's

recommended actions. Yes, I do, thank you. Projects like this are tough that come across our commission. Our hands are really, in one sense, tied. We can say no, you know, and I totally agree with Maggie's comments. And Commissioner Boysen, the problem is the state law. And we can say no today to this, and it just throws it in a legal spiral. Lawsuits. And ultimately, I believe we would lose that as a county. And so. You know, it's a tough, tough decision today. But I'm going to save the time and the money of the county. And by supporting this project. And are there any comments or or questions from the Commission? One thing I would like to say though, before I do support this, is is there any way we can request as a county and a staff of Caltrans to study the on ramp there? As part of this, send a letter to the Caltrans or or. Director, warden or County counsel. I would I would suggest, if that's your commission's will to to to bring that up separate and apart from this project because it wouldn't be appropriate as part of this project approval. But if that's a concern of your commission, I think that direction could be provided. You know, as part of a separate agenda item. For instance, you know, I don't have the agenda in front of me when when your commission makes your comments

and statements, I think it's better reserved for that, that agenda item and not as part of this project approval. Thank you, Councilor Barnes. Secretary Luce, do you have a comment? Oh. I saw Vice Chair Cushing turn on her hr microphone a while ago, but it doesn't seem like you wanted to speak, right? No, no. That's okay. Okay. Thank you. Chair. Yes. Just before we vote, just one last comment that I have. It looks like. And you're right, it's very difficult on this vote. It looks like there's enough votes to pass this without my vote. So I'm going to support based on on agreeing with commissioner to my left I'm going to vote no on in respect both your guys's votes on this Secretary loose. Take roll call please. All right. Commissioner Boydston. No. Commissioner. Kessel. No. Commissioner. Ayala. Yes. Vice chair. Cushing. Yes. Chair. Sandlin. Yes. The motion is three. Three. Yes and two nos. The next item is. Let's see

here. Next item is item seven. Discussion report from the planning director Ward on the board. Actions and and other items okay. Thank you. Chair. Commissioners, I do not have any reportable items from the Board of Supervisors. next Planning Commission hearing is set for March. This item relates to a variance request for from development standards of the non Coastal Zoning Ordinance. For a nine foot high fence. The site is located in district one at 11465 Nardo Street in the Saticoy community. And that's all I have to report for you. We have no meeting on March 19th, so March 5th would be your only meeting for the month. Thank you, thank you. Director Ward, are there any items the commissioners would like to discuss or introduce? Did you want to introduce about the on ramp? I did I did want to introduce that and see if we as a planning commission can write a letter to the Caltrans to study that on ramp and off ramp. Is that possibility that we can request that from Caltrans, from the planning department or the county? Chair? Commissioners, our public works agency has the most interplay and coordination with Caltrans, since it isn't a component of the land that would be under the authority of the county, it would be the state with Caltrans. I'm not sure how the Public Works Agency would coordinate. You may want to make a if you give direction

for a support letter for study that that be through may planning and the Public Works transportation division. So that would give flexibility enough to know what is the best vehicle of that letter, since I can't give you that right now, if that makes sense to you. And then I could report out at one of our future meetings on how we provided the feedback. Commissioner Boysen yeah, I agree with doing that. I would add only add the other on ramp and off ramp at Kaniaga Laga. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we'd like to add those two to the list. And Maggie, did you have one in Simi Valley. You said that there was an issue there too as well. Actually it's it's more relative to the Knolls. It's a an internal community. So okay, real roads to to analyze. Camarillo Springs has one there too as well. Right there on the northbound side there. It's pretty I've, you know, used to live in that community and I can hear accidents there. So many deaths from that on ramp off ramp. So let's put those three on the list to present to the public works. And from planning to discuss with Caltrans to look at it, study and and review, whether they do it or not is up to them. But we as a planning commission would like to request. Yeah, communication the three interchange again just to make sure I have those correct. Camarillo Springs, the one on Stanley that was discussed today and the pictures that were shown today. And or oh, there was one. The candidate can. Canada. Yeah. I can't pronounce it. Can a logo. It's

off to 33. Yeah okay okay. Great. Thank you, thank you. And I also had a side talk with County Councilor Barnes. I really appreciate the conversation we had about the the gentleman that came to speak today, the public comment in regards to that kind of like a catch 22. If we could have planning study that as part of their their study within the the reform that's going on if that's possible or not, or as county council said, somebody probably needs to bring a project first for planning to deny and then have that come up. But it seemed like a valid issue. The gentleman spoke about today with a catch 22 with our ordinance chair and commissioners. I did speak with part of not directly with Mr. Schultz, but part of his staff. And I did encourage them that the work plan, the three year work plan for the planning division for process improvement and policy and zoning reforms, that's coming to the board on March 24th, and I encourage him to participate in that process. Ultimately, it is the Board of Supervisors that would set the direction, if it's any county initiated changes to our zoning codes and regulations, including in the coastal zone. And so that would be his more direct path to make his submit his information and see if the board incorporates that into the work plan or not. Can can we, as a planning commission also? Request to the supervisors to look into that or or yes, that can. The way that operates through your bylaws is that you would need to hold a discussion item here first, because it wasn't agendized for any public comment in regards to that, and that your recommended direction would be provided to the Board of Supervisors. We have done that a few times since I've

been here. It does take a bit of effort. If there's a lead individual of your commission that wants to be involved with part of that, because it's a write up, it will show up as some form of a staff report. So it takes some effort. So it would not be something that would happen between now and the March 24th Board of Supervisors. But if you want to give that direction today and have a lead individual that I can coordinate with, then we would work on preparing information and when to set that on your calendar. Sounds great. I would take that lead. Seems like something that's notable that we should that I would support staff in that. Certainly. Any other comments or from the other commissioners, any other items to discuss? The next item was eight, but that I think that that was taken care of with the public comments. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I now adjourn this meeting. Thank you.