Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I'd like to call the order of the Planning Commission meeting of May 21st, 2026. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Good morning, Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Boydston?

Here.

Commissioner Kessley? Here. Commissioner Ayala? Here. Vice Chair Cushing?

Here.

Chair Sandlin?

Here. All right. Please stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance. The next item is public comment. Secretary Luce, did we receive any comments on items not included on this agenda?

Chair Sandlin, I did not receive any public comments that's not related to the agenda today. Thank you.

Thank you, Luce. The next item is approval of the minutes for May 7th, 2026. Do we have a discussion or a motion to approve the minutes for May 7th, 2026?

Move to approve.

Second Gary kitchen motion by Commissioner Ayala and a second by vice chair Cushing And secretary loose, please take roll call Commissioner Boydston all abstain.

I was not here Commissioner Kesley. Yes Commissioner Ayala. Yes vice chair Cushing. Yes chair Sandlin.

Yes, I And the next item, 6A, case number PL240109 and PL240120 for the County of Ventura. The project description is it's a public hearing to consider the county initiated amendments to the Ventura County general plan, coastal area plan, coastal zoning ordinance, non-coastal zoning ordinance, and subdivision ordinance to implement the energy and military land use compatibility roadmap and consider amendments to the Piru area plan to incorporate changes to the roadway improvements in the Piru community. The project location is all of the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. Case Planner Todd Davis, please proceed with your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Rob Mullane, Director of the Resource Management Agency. I just wanted to say a few introductory comments on this item before I turn it over to Todd Davis and Shelly Sussman and their team. This is an item that's really been in the works for quite some time. It's involved a lot of community outreach. It's involved a lot of input from some of our important partners within Ventura County, including the Naval Air, I'm sorry, the Naval Base, Ventura County and the Airport Land Use Commission. There are components in these amendments that do provide for additional permit flexibility and allow additional uses. So in that context, it is one of the many components that we're bringing forward for permit streamlining and additional flexibility in our allowable uses and just providing for additional opportunities for development of sites. So again, there's quite a lot here. Mr. Davis' presentation, I've seen various aspects of it. It'll be very informative. And I'm really very enthusiastic to see this item at this point. And we look forward to hopefully good reception from the Commission this morning. Thank you.

Thank you, Rob.

Good morning, Chair Sandlin, Vice Chair Cushing and Commissioners. My name is Todd Davis. I'm a senior planner with the Planning Division and one of the case planners for the Energy and Military and Land Use Compatibility Roadmap Project. I'm joined this morning by my colleague and fellow case planner for the project, Assistant Planner Matt Hershberger and Planning Manager Shelly Sussman. For members of the public who are joining remotely, this presentation is for agenda item number 6A. For participants on Zoom who wish to speak, please press the raise hand button on Zoom now and you'll be connected at the appropriate time. If participating by telephone, please press star and then nine to be cued. Before I begin with this morning's presentation, I'd like to briefly highlight the contents of the errata memorandum that was provided. The majority of these items addressed in the memorandum correct minor word omissions, typographical errors, and ordinance section references. As an overview of this morning's presentation, I'll provide the project history and scope, followed by environmental review, findings and consistency analysis, a summary of project outreach, and conclude with staff's recommended actions. Before getting into the project details, it's helpful to review how the energy and military land use compatibility roadmap project was developed. The board's action in December 2023 established a phased approach for the Renewable Energy Program. In May of 2024, the board approved phase one of the Renewable Energy Program, which included codifying the battery energy storage use into the non-coastal zoning ordinance and establishing the 100 acre acreage limitation for the battery energy storage use in the OS, AE and RA zones. In 2025, planning division staff reported back on permit processing of the 100 acre limitation. Today, staff presents the energy and military land use compatibility roadmap, which completes work on the renewable energy program, as well as a collection of energy and military land use compatibility related general plan programs and board directives. This graphic is a visual representation of project scope, phasing, and development. After completion of the initial work in phase one, staff focused on development standards for both the principal and accessory energy-related uses in phase two. As the project progressed, staff concluded that it would be efficient to expand the project to include the energy-related programs required by the general plan, as well as energy-related requirements from the state and codification of several planning director determinations. Finally, staff realized that some of the energy-related regulations impacted land around Naval Base Ventura County. The project was expanded again to include the general plan programs related to military land use compatibility. It was at this point that the project went from being referred to as the renewable energy program to the energy and military land use compatibility roadmap as it is known today. Under the other items column, there's a bullet for the Piru area plan. This part of the project is not energy related. It was added to assist the Public Works Agency process a Piru area plan amendment, which will be described later in my presentation. The roadmap requires amendments to numerous documents, which I've listed here. Before I review the proposed development standards for the battery energy storage and solar photovoltaic energy generation uses, I want to describe what I mean when I refer to principal and accessory uses. Here are some images showing typical examples of both the battery energy storage and solar photovoltaic energy generation uses as a principal use. This use is also referred to sometimes as utility scale or front of the meter and the energy stored or generated is used offsite. Accessory uses such as the ones shown here are sometimes referred to as back of the meter and the energy stored or generated is used onsite. This diagram shows some of the proposed development standards for both battery energy storage or BESS, B-E-S-S, and solar energy as a principal use. On the left are those standards that apply only to BESS. On the right are standards that apply only to solar energy. Those standards that apply to both are shown in the middle. Those standards highlighted in gold apply to the coastal zoning ordinance only. I'LL PAUSE FOR A MOMENT SO YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE STANDARDS. SHOWN HERE IS AN EXCERPT OF THE USE MATRIX FOR BOTH THE NCZO OR NONCOASTAL ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE CZO OR COASTAL ZONING ORDINANCE THAT INCLUDES THE THREE PRINCIPLE USES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. battery energy storage, solar photovoltaic energy generation, and alternative fuel production. This item is included in the errata memorandum that was provided for your review, which incorrectly noted the permit requirements for the solar photovoltaic energy generation use. Figure two of the staff report noted the solar energy generation use requiring a CUP. which was included in the RADA memorandum to correct it to requiring a PD permit. During phase two of what was then known as the Renewable Energy Program, the board requested that staff assess whether current building lot coverage standards for the agricultural open space and rural land use designations could be increased to accommodate battery energy storage facilities. Building lot coverage is defined in the general plan as the percent of a lot that can be covered by buildings. As this table from the general plan shows, the maximum building lot coverage for the agricultural and open space land use designations is 5% and 25% for the rural designation. It's important to note that the battery modules used in BEST projects meet the definition of building in the non-coastal zoning ordinance, which defines a building as any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and is intended for the shelter, housing, or enclosure of persons, animals, chattel, or property of any kind. Changing building lot coverage standards, which are established by the general plan policies, would substantively change the general plans regulation of these land use designations by authorizing the intensification of building lot coverage. Such change would require countywide voter approval under SOAR. This map shows the geographic location of transmission and distribution lines across Ventura County and the associated zoning classification. The yellow lines depict high voltage transmission lines and the blue lower voltage distribution lines. This is important to consider because the proposed regulations include a development standard that BESS and solar energy projects be located adjacent to or as feasibly close to existing transmission lines. In addition to the siting constraints, there are other parts of the proposed ordinance and existing implementation tools which address the sizing of the battery energy storage and solar photovoltaic energy generation uses. Those existing and proposed items are summarized here and include such things as the acreage limitation for the battery energy storage use, and exclusion areas for the battery energy storage and solar photovoltaic energy generation uses. Given that both accessory and principal energy projects can locate on agricultural land, planning division staff coordinated with staff from the Agriculture Weights and Measures Department. During project development, the agricultural commissioner in consultation with other agricultural commissioners from across the state and with the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program affirmed that if ground mounted solar panels cover soils classified by the important farmland inventory, it is considered a loss of classified soils. This is consistent with the determinations made by the state's farmland mapping and monitoring program, which maintains the important farmland maps. Based on this determination, planning staff proposed that the principal solar use require a PD permit or plan development permit, and that accessory solar uses on prime agricultural soil of five acres or more or 10 acres or more on any other classified soils also require a plan development permit. I'd also like to highlight a use from the December 2024 planning director determination. included as solar photovoltaic energy generation and or battery energy storage with accessory medium and heavy duty electric vehicle charging. This is a specific type of electric vehicle charging that is an accessory use to the bus or battery energy storage or solar photovoltaic energy generation uses. The photo on this slide from the director's determination illustrates what one of these accessory facilities may look like. Staff have proposed a suite of development standards for this use, which are included in exhibit 4A and 4B, which are the proposed non-coastal zoning ordinance. I'd like to highlight the first of those development standards on the list. These facilities must locate within one half mile of the national highway system. I've included a figure from the general plan that highlights the extent of the national highway system in unincorporated Ventura County. The figure notes county roads on the national highway system in green and state highways on the national highway system in red. Systems would be required to locate within one half mile of either. In addition to the principal uses I highlighted, the project includes development standards for the four accessory uses shown. First is accessory wind energy, also known as distributed wind energy generation, was added to Codify in October 2008 planning director memorandum. Portable accessory solar photovoltaic energy, which is also known as balcony solar, is included as an accessory use. This emerging technology can be used when roof-mounted or ground-mounted systems may not be technically or financially feasible. The third use, floating accessory solar photovoltaic energy generation, is another emerging technology that allows for solar panels to be mounted atop a floating buoyant structure. This use can provide an option that would not conflict with agricultural operations or result in the loss of ag soils. And lastly, consistent with state law, development standards are proposed for the electric vehicle charging station use, which is shown here. I'd also like to highlight the incentive and streamlining efforts that are included as part of the project. Consistent with general plan program has you from the hazards and safety element, a fee incentive will be made available for qualifying passive solar dwellings. Consistent with general plan program COSQ, the battery energy storage and solar photovoltaic energy generation uses will be eligible for a fee waiver for the pre-submittal review and concept project review fees. Consistent with general plan program has W applications for solar photovoltaic canopies covering the entirety of required motor vehicle parking spaces will be eligible for a 50% reduction in eligible planning division entitlements. Additionally, several streamlining efforts are also included as a part of the project. solar photovoltaic energy generation and wind energy generation which are currently allowed uses in the non-coastal zoning ordinance are proposed to be downshifted from a planning commission approved cup or conditional use permit to a planning director approved plan development permit further the project codifies several eligible accessory uses eligible for building permit only entitlement And lastly, post adoption implementation resources and materials such as an update to the discretionary permit application, project referral forms and a permit checklist, which are included as exhibits 10, 11, 13 and 15 have been prepared to assist interested parties. Lastly, several energy related general plan programs are also implemented through the project. Program has O requires that we amend the coastal zoning ordinance and non-coastal zoning ordinance to prohibit solar concentration facilities throughout unincorporated Ventura County. For reference, solar concentration facilities collect, concentrate, and convert solar energy using a receiver. This use could generate glare and is distinct from the solar photovoltaic energy generation use. Program COSU requires that we amend the coastal and non-coastal zoning ordinance to require certain new non-residential projects to include solar canopies. Please note that this item was included in the staff report which incorrectly noted this requirement applied to residential and non-residential projects and is described further in the errata memo. And lastly, program LUE requires that we amend the non-coastal zoning ordinance to allow for the production of alternative fuels in the industrial zones. And thus, staff are proposing that alternative fuel production be allowed in the non-coastal M2 and M3 zone classifications. And with that, I'll hand off the next portion of the presentation to my colleague Matt Hershberger for the summary of the military land use compatibility components of the project. Thank you.

Thank you, Todd. And good morning, Chair Sandlin, Vice Chair Cushing, and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Matt Hershberger, and I am also with the General Plan Implementation Section of the Planning Division. This project component will cover the implementation of several general plan programs related to military land use compatibility, specifically with Naval Base Ventura County, also referred to as NBVC at Point Magoo. As Todd explained, we found a geographic link between renewable energy development standards and the military programs. Due to that overlap, staff determined that would be most efficient to integrate the energy and military compatibility components into a single coordinated ordinance package. I want to begin by highlighting two foundational documents that guided this portion of project development. The Naval Base Ventura County Joint Land Use Study, or JLUS, and the Point Magoo Air Installations Compatible Use Zone Study, commonly referred to as the ACUS study. The JLUS, published in 2015, was a collaborative planning effort between Naval Base Ventura County, the County of Ventura, surrounding cities and regional stakeholders intended to guide future land use development decisions around NBBC. The study identifies potential compatibility concerns associated with military operations and establishes recommended strategies related to planning, zoning, and coordination with outside agencies. Similarly, the ACOO study, also published in 2015, is a Department of Defense and Navy planning tool intended to help local jurisdictions identify and plan for compatible land use concerns near military airfields, particularly in relation to aircraft noise and accident potential areas. The study identifies these areas and offers recommendations that form the basis of our implementation strategy. The strategies identified in the JLUS and ACUS studies were subsequently incorporated into the Ventura County General Plan, represented by four general plan programs. Program LUK directs the county to incorporate the Navy's ACUS land use compatibility recommendations into local development standards. Program LUL requires that the county comply with the Federal Aviation Administration's, or FAA, vertical obstruction standards by incorporating the Navy's airfield imaginary surfaces into the zoning ordinances to protect military airspace also surrounding Point Mugu. Program LUM directs the county to establish the military compatibility areas and subzones identified in the joint land use study. These compatibility areas include the imaginary services and the ACUS zones mentioned above, but also include a bird aircraft strike hazard or BASH radius around NBBC Point Mugu. Finally, HAS-N directs the county to coordinate with Naval Base Ventura County on discretionary projects involving the radio frequency spectrum to avoid interference with military communications. At the planning level, the tool we are proposing to implement these programs is the Military Land Use Compatibility, or MLUC, overlay zone. The overlay zone intersects over 9,000 parcels and generally surrounds Naval Base Ventura County Point Magoo. It also includes a military training route corridor up the western side and across the northern portion of the county. The overlay is divided into 11 sub-areas, each corresponding to a specific compatibility concern identified through the ACUS study, the JLUS, or FAA and Navy airspace protection standards. Sub-areas one through seven each have an FAA vertical obstruction standard. These height standards are also referred to as the imaginary surfaces and are specifically outlined in the JLUS. The height standards collectively apply to the military training route, the approach and departure zones, and the inner and outer horizontal services around Point Magoo. For MLUX subareas one through five, there is an additional standard that prohibits battery energy storage and solar photovoltaic energy generation. This approach carries forward the renewable energy restriction concept that formed phase three of the renewable energy program. In sub-areas six and seven, discretionary entitlements for these uses are allowed, provided they are submitted to the Department of Defense by county staff for consultation regarding potential safety or incompatibility issues with military operations. MLUX sub-areas eight and nine are derived from the ACOO study. Here, planning division staff proposed to require a recordation of risk for applicants seeking an entitlement for a proposed dwelling and any habitable structure. This form, attached as exhibit 11 in the staff report, would be recorded with the Ventura County Recorder's Office to appear on title to the subject property, acknowledging the presence and risk and effects of military aircraft activity. Lastly, MLUC subareas 10 and 11 address compatibility issues related to radio frequency interference and bird wildlife aircraft strike hazard, or BASH. Planning Division staff has proposed a referral and coordination process with Naval Base Ventura County for discretionary projects that involve radio frequency encroachment or uses that could increase bird attractants near military aviation operations. Staff proposed to amend the discretionary permit application attached as exhibit 10 to include references to these sub areas and also proposes a new military land use compatibility project referral form to help planning division staff facilitate coordination between applicants and Naval Base Ventura County. This form is included as exhibit 15 of the staff report. Excuse me. A map of the overlay zone and the list of parcels are attached as exhibits 4C and 5C of the staff report. And the associated development standards are proposed for inclusion into the non-coastal and coastal zoning ordinances and are found within exhibits 4A, 4B, and 5A and 5B. Finally, I want to briefly summarize the coordination and review process that has occurred to date. Throughout development of the MLUC overlay zone and the related ordinance amendments, planning division staff coordinated directly with staff from Naval Base Ventura County, including transfer of mapping data, review of the development standards, referral procedures, and implementation framework. NBVC staff provided comments and technical feedback on several components of the project, and these comments have been incorporated into the ordinance package before you today. Additionally, because these amendments occur within an airport influence area and pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act, this component of the roadmap was referred to the county's Airport Land Use Commission, or ALUC, for consistency under the Ventura County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In January 2026, the ALUC unanimously found the MLUC overlay zone and related amendments to be consistent. At this time, I will hand it over back to Todd to finish the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. As I noted at the beginning of the presentation, an amendment to the Piru area plan is included as part of the project. The Public Works Agency received an inquiry from the Piru Neighborhood Council in July 2024 regarding roadway improvements along a portion of Main Street in Piru. The physical roadway improvements necessitate an amendment to the Piru Area Plan, which is the item before your commission for consideration. Public Works Agency staff is available for questions should you have any regarding the nature of the proposed roadway improvements. Due to the multifaceted nature of the project, the CEQA analysis references multiple sections of the CEQA guidelines and public resources code sections. A comprehensive assessment of the project's CEQA compliance is included as Exhibit 14 to the staff report. The Board of Supervisors is required to make certain project findings. Such findings include that the proposed project is not detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. that it represents good zoning practice, is consistent with the county's general plan, and would not amend a mandatory element of the general plan more frequently than four times during any calendar year. These required findings are included in exhibits two and 17 to the staff report. All required findings can be made. I'd like to take a moment to recognize the coordination and public outreach that occurred throughout project development, which included both internal and external coordination. You've heard a little bit about this coordination through this morning's presentation. This item was noticed in the Ventura County Star on May 1st. and email distribution to interested parties and project website updates occurred once the agenda for today's hearing was available for review. Planning Division staff have also consulted with California Coastal Commission staff regarding the proposed amendment to the county's local coastal program. As a result of the coordination, the following are a few of the revisions that were incorporated into the coastal zoning ordinance. Solar photovoltaic energy generation and wind energy generation were elevated from a PD permit to a CUP. Battery energy storage is proposed to be prohibited within the Santa Monica Mountains or M overlay zone. And a viewshed analysis is required for the battery energy storage and solar photovoltaic energy generation uses. I'd like to provide the Commission with a look ahead to the project schedule. After today's public hearing, the item is tentatively scheduled to be heard before the Board of Supervisors on August 4th. Once heard before the board, those items which constitute an amendment to the county's local coastal program, which includes the coastal zoning ordinance and coastal area plan, will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission for certification later in 2026 and into 2027. There are 23 recommended actions included in Exhibit 2 in the staff report. Staff's recommended actions for the Commission are to certify that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the staff report and all exhibits thereto, including the errata memorandum, and has considered all comments received during the public comment and hearing process. And to adopt a resolution included as Exhibit 2 including the errata memorandum to the staff report recommending that the board of supervisors take the included actions enumerated in the staff report this concludes my presentation this morning planning division staff are available should the commission have any questions i'd also like to note that available this morning are representatives from the building and safety division public works agency and sustainability division thank you

Thank you, Mr. Davis. Any questions of the staff by the commission? Commissioner Kessley?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. IT'S COMPREHENSIVE AND A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATIVE THAN READING IT ON THE STAFF REPORT SO I APPRECIATE THAT. SO MY QUESTION IS GOING TO DRILL A LITTLE BIT DOWN INTO THE M1, M2 AND M3 ZONES. BEING VERY INVOLVED IN PROTECTING INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, I'M CURIOUS IF YOU CAN MAYBE EXPLAIN IN MORE DETAIL THE IMPACTS OF SOME OF THE CHANGES IN THE I THINK YOU SAID M2 AND M3 ZONES AS FAR AS PRESERVING THOSE PROPERTIES FOR INDUSTRIAL USES.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KESLEY, THROUGH THE CHAIR. THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF REGARDING THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES PERTAINS TO ALLOWING THE PRODUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS. originates from general plan program lue which directs staff to incorporate that revision it's only proposed to be permitted in the m2 and m3 industrial zones all other uses enumerated in the staff report and ordinance amendment are already permitted in the industrial zones the alternative fuels production is the only new use contemplated in the industrial zones

My understanding was through the economic development plan that was done through the county that one of the things we were going to preserve would be all industrial properties so that they continue to be available for industrial uses so that we can create jobs. And my fear is with the replacement of those buildings that we wouldn't have the job creation that we desperately need in our county. So I'm just trying to make sure that we are keeping that in mind or if something changed, if someone could share that with me.

Thank you. Manager Sussman, do you have anything you'd like to add to that?

Oh, oh, OK, I'm sorry about that. Thank you, Commissioner Kessley. As Todd mentioned, the the decision to place these this alternatives fuel use in the industrial zone is driven by a general plan program. And it is by its nature an industrial use. And so we did feel that that was the appropriate place for it. I would say as a economic driver, there are some interesting things happening statewide with the creation and innovations of fuels. And so hopefully that would in itself, you know, alternative fuels development would be HELP TO DRIVE SOME ECONOMIC VITALITY AND NEW USES THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY PRESENT IN THE COUNTY. NEW USES THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY PRESENT IN THE COUNTY.

NEW USES THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY PRESENT IN THE COUNTY. NEW USES THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY PRESENT IN THE COUNTY. NEW USES THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY PRESENT IN THE COUNTY. NEW USES THAT AREN'T CURRENTLY PRESENT IN THE COUNTY. BUT IT DOES UNFORTUNATELY PRESENT IN THE COUNTY. BUT IT DOES UNFORTUNATELY PRESENT IN THE COUNTY.

BUT IT DOES UNFORTUNATELY ELIMINATE JOB CREATION BECAUSE BUT IT DOES UNFORTUNATELY ELIMINATE JOB CREATION BECAUSE BUT IT DO

Any other questions of staff and the Commission?

Chair Sandlin, if I may.

Commissioner Ayala.

So wanting to dig a little bit deeper into the requirements for solar photovoltaic generation and or battery energy storage systems that are integrated into medium and heavy duty truck charging. WOULD THESE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY TO LIKE THE BUILDING LOCK COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO SITES WHOSE PRIMARY FUNCTION IS ENERGY GENERATION THAT'S LOOPED INTO MEDIUM DUTY, HEAVY DUTY TRUCK CHARGING OR WOULD THIS ALSO APPLY TO SITES PURELY DEDICATED TO JUST MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE CHARGING?

Thank you, Commissioner. Through the chair, if I may have just a moment, I'll refer to that section of the ordinance, make sure I'm REFERRING TO THAT CORRECTLY, BUT YOUR STATEMENT IS CORRECT. THAT USE BY WAY OF THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION IS AN ACCESSORY USE AND AS A SPECIFIC TYPE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING FOR HEAVY AND MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLES SPECIFIC TO THE PRINCIPLE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE AND SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY GENERATION USES. Those development standards in that section would be specific to that accessory use and would not apply to the broader principle battery energy storage or solar uses.

OK. And then just a quick follow up on that. FOR THOSE MEDIUM DUTY, HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE CHARGING SITES, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENTS TO INTEGRATE TRUCK PARKING AVAILABILITY? I KNOW REGIONWIDE TRUCK PARKING IS KIND OF A HOT BUTTON ISSUE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR. I BELIEVE THERE'S ONLY NINE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MEDIUM DUTY, HEAVY DUTY TRUCK CHARGING PARKING AREAS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, SO JUST WONDERING IF THAT REQUIREMENT IS ALSO INTEGRATED INTO SOME OF THESE

NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. NEW REQUIRE ASSISTANT PLANNER HERSHBERG, I WANT TO BRING THAT UP, WAS SPECIFIC AND CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES USES. THERE ARE LIMITED ALLOWANCES UNDER THE USE IN SECTION 8107-49.4 INCLUDED THAT ALLOW FOR LIMITED USES BEYOND THE EV CHARGING, BUT IS DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Cushing?

Yeah, one question. It was in the, in charging stations have to be located a half mile from a national highway system? Is that just arbitrary or is that, I mean, so somebody wanted to put a charging station three quarters of a mile off the highway, they couldn't do it? Is that one?

Commissioner Cushing, through the chair, that standard came from the California Highway Design Manual for the development of what's referred to there as wayside stops. Those need to be located within a half mile of the national highway system. WE SAW SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO APPLY IT TO THE EV ACCESSORY HEAVY AND MEDIUM DUTY EV CHARGING USE PROPOSED. OKAY. SO IF THEY WERE SEEKING TO AVAIL THEMSELVES IN THIS SECTION THEY WOULD HAVE TO LOCATE WITHIN A HALF MILE. THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. ON THE BATTERY STORAGE, THEY CAN ONLY USE 5% OF THEIR AREA TO PUT THE STORAGE IN AND THE REST 95% HAS TO BE OPEN AREA?

COMMISSIONER CUSHING THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE BUILDING LOCK COVERAGE STANDARDS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, THAT IS 5%. AS I ANNUMERATED IN MY PRESENTATION, THE MODULES THEMSELVES ARE WHAT CONTRIBUTE TO BUILDING LOCK COVERAGE. THERE MAY BE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT'S INCLUDED IN THEIR ENTITLEMENT BOUNDARY, BUT IT'S THE MODULES THEMSELVES WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD BE LIMITED TO 5% FOR BUILDING LOCK COVERAGE PURPOSES.

WOW, BECAUSE THAT REALLY, I MEAN, YOU WOULD HAVE A LOT OF EMPTY SPACE IN BETWEEN THE Because what, a 10,000 square foot lot, you can only use 500 square feet for battery storage? About 5%.

The battery energy storage use is also permitted in the industrial zones, which have a little bit of a higher building lot coverage, which may experience smaller lot sizes. But of the larger battery energy storage locations that may locate an open space designated parcels, they would be subject to the 5% lot coverage for the modules themselves.

What is the typical size? Is there a typical size for these batteries storage?

THE COUNTY HAS ENTITLED TWO BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE PROJECTS, ONE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND ONE IN THE AG AND OPEN SPACE, AND THAT ONE IS APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES IN SIZE. BUT THE MODULES THEMSELVES ARE WHAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOCK COVERAGE, SO I'D HAVE TO REFER TO THE SPECIFICS OF THAT PROJECT, BUT IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES IN SIZE.

AND WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 100 AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF SOAR?

THE ACREAGE LIMITATION THAT WAS THE ACREAGE LIMITATION THAT WAS CODIFIED AND APPROVED BY YOUR CODIFIED AND APPROVED BY YOUR COMMISSION AND LATER THE BOARD COMMISSION AND LATER THE BOARD SETS 100 ACRE LIMITATION FOR SETS 100 ACRE LIMITATION FOR THE AG AND OPEN SPACE. THE AG AND OPEN SPACE. THAT'S SEPARATE FROM SOAR. THAT'S SEPARATE FROM SOAR. THAT WAS A RESULT OF THE THAT WAS A RESULT OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SITING RENEWABLE ENERGY SITING ASSESSMENT AND THE DIRECTION OF ASSESSMENT AND THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD TO LIMIT THE BATTER ENERGY THE BOARD TO LIMIT THE BATTER ENERGY STORAGE USE BUT TO PROVIDE STORA And it would be that 100 acre limitation is in addition to the 20 acres for the coastal zoning ordinance that staff are proposing for the coastal open space and CM zones.

Excuse me, I think that's only to the coastal open space. And then if you're building one of these battery storage, you have to have a bond every year associated with it to if you're going to decommission it? A surety bond?

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, THE THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, THE STAFF'S PROPOSAL DOES INCLUDE STAFF'S PROPOSAL DOES INCLUDE SURETY AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS SURETY AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ENUMERATED. THAT ARE ENUMERATED. I CAN REFER TO THAT SECTION FOR I CAN REFER TO THAT SECTION FOR YOU, BUT I WOULD REFER TO THAT YOU, BUT I WOULD REFER TO THAT SECTION FOR THE SPECIFICS. SECTION FOR THE SPECIFICS. BUT THEY ARE PROPOSED FOR BOTH BUT THEY ARE PROPOSED FOR BOTH THE SURETIES AND INSURANCE THE SURETIES AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BATTERY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE USE AND

energy storage per year?

I'LL REFER TO THE SPECIFICS BUT THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL LIABILITY AND EXCESS LIABILITY ARE INCLUDED. THOSE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS THAT WERE APPLIED TO THE APPROVED ALREADY APPROVED BATTER ENERGY STORAGE PROJECTS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S STANDARD CONTRACTING PROCESS THROUGH GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY GSA FOR INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

Okay, but that's talking about a liability insurance, not about the decommissioning of it, right?

Maybe if I could jump in here I County Council help with the with the financial surety so that the the purpose of that is to Have money available for the the eventual Removal of the facility and this is especially a concern It was raised by a member of the Board of Supervisors when these facilities are sited on agricultural land or open space. And so it's not an uncommon practice. And so the idea is that there's money available at the end of the useful life of the facility. If a facility is located in a commercial or industrial area and in more of a warehouse type situation, then the same financial assurance would probably not be required. And so the way it works is, especially if you're siting on ag land, you need to, the applicant needs to do, or the permittee if the permit's granted, needs to come up with with the plan about how they're going to take down the facility. And so the estimated cost of that will serve as the amount of the surety. And so then the way the surety bonds work is if the company goes to a bonding agency as opposed to posting the cash themselves. And this practice is used in mining. It's required for mines to ensure reclamation under state law. So there's a whole market for getting bonds. So if you're going to go to the market and get a bond, then you're paying a percentage of the financial surety amount every year. I don't know the exact amount. I want to say it's like maybe 2% or 3% per year.

OK. OK. Some of those bonds, though, are not available. Have you guys done any financial analysis on that as far as what a bond like this would cost for something like this and if there is actually a market specifically for removal of the battery storage?

County Council hasn't performed that analysis. That's outside of Eric's expertise. Like I said, I know in the mining sector, it's a common practice. I know for a lot of solar farms going back a few decades, it's also a common practice there. But to answer your question specifically, no, that analysis wasn't done recently.

Just because I could just see what the cost is. I mean, I've done bonds for people specifically on things like this, and the amount you pay for the bond is the cost of the cleanup, basically. So you're basically saying they've got to post the cost of the cleanup to be able to do the project. That's basically what it comes down to. Even the bond company, they'll issue a bond, but they want that money in a secure account. So let's say it costs a million dollars to clean up. They'll give you a bond at two, 3%, but you got to pay the million bucks. Then you're paying two, 3% on top of it.

are you talking about you need the you basically need collateral to show that you have collateral to before the bonds not collateral but cash they won't like the collateral won't accept collateral they'll accept cash only usually right and so um maybe just to clarify the the county would also if if the company if that is the you know industry practice the the county will allow the permittee to basically self-bond and, you know, with the letter of credit. And so they don't have to go to the market. And so if you're saying they have to set aside the money anyway, then we can cut out the permittee could cut out the middleman and go that route. And that happens in the mining area as well.

That probably, that's the documentation too as well? Is that in the ordinance or is that in the, that would be allowed?

Yeah. That's already in this? Yeah, letter of credit, yeah.

Letter of credit, okay, great. Commissioner Boydston.

Just to follow up, there's, I think I heard two battery storage facilities already have been, built in the county, one residential, one in the Ag. How were those handled from the standpoint of bonding and surety?

My recollection is that we actually modeled these regulations based on, let me back up, so the most recent project that actually your your commission approved it was on the oxnard plane um i'm gonna say it's the the shoals project um my recollection is that these regulations were modeled after the approach that was taken there again because that was on ag land and so they had to come up with um a restoration plan and and post-assurity uh the other facility was um or does exist on, I can't remember if it's commercial or industrial land. And so, and that was actually several years ago before, and it was basically permitted as a warehouse use. And that's one of the reasons why obviously we're doing these regulations now to be more comprehensive, but in part because it was on, you know, permitted as a warehouse use, there's no financial assurance required there.

So you're merely codifying something that has worked in the past?

Yeah, and I'm not sure where that project is in terms of posting it, but it's a condition that we've applied.

Any other questions from the commission or staff? Seeing none, I will now open the public hearing. Secretary Luce, do we have any public comments or speakers on this item?

Yes, Chair Sandlin. We do have one speaker in person, and we do have four in Zoom. So I will go ahead and call the one in person right now. His name is Kendall Lawson.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Sandlin, county planning commissioners, county staff. and members of the public for the record my name is kendall lucine and i am the installation community plans and liaison officer at naval base ventura county i'm here today to express full and unreserved support for the proposed amendments in the to the county general plan and zoning ordinances specifically the implementation of the energy and military land use compatibility roadmap and the creation of a military land use compatibility overlay zone around naval base ventura county naval base ventura county is a premier installation critical to our nation's defense, supporting complex aviation, surface, and weapons testing missions. Our ability to execute these missions safely and effectively depends heavily on the surrounding environment. Over the years, civilian encroachment, whether through physical structures in flight paths or radio frequency interference to our Navy communications, has been an increasing challenge regarding the safety and security of our military readiness and operations nationwide. The proposed countywide military land use compatibility overlay zone is a proactive, collaborative solution to this encroachment challenge. Developed in partnership between Naval Base Ventura County leadership and staff, the airport land use commission, and your dedicated county planning division staff and other department agencies. Truly, we are gratefully thankful for that. This overlaid zone will ensure the future land use planning and community development remains compatible with essential military operations. By establishing clear guidelines for structural heights, aircraft noise zones, and spectrum protection, this ordinance protects the general welfare, community, and public safety for Ventura County while preserving the irreplaceable testing and training environments at Naval Base Ventura County. We also recognize and fully support the county's goals to enhance regional energy resilience through streamlined renewable energy development that conforms with the guidelines established by the Department of War, Military Aviation and Mission Assurance Siding Clearinghouse and the Federal Aviation Administration derivatives that are codified in the Joint Land Use Study, as well as the ACUS program here at Naval Base Ventura County. A robust and resilient civilian power and grid directly contributes to the energy security of our Navy installation. This roadmap, the EMLUC roadmap, proves that economic growth, environmental sustainability, mission compatibility, and safeguarding our national security are not mutually exclusive. They can be achieved together through strong military community partnerships, such as the County of Ventura's stewardship in cooperative partnering with the Naval Base of Ventura County. Furthermore, on behalf of Naval Base Ventura County, we urge the Ventura County Planning Commission to approve these amendments in their entirety, ensuring Naval Base Ventura County remains a vital asset to both the Department of War and the County of Ventura's economic resilience for decades to come. Thank you again for your time and for receiving Naval Base Ventura County's public statement in support of the Ventura County Planning Commission hearing docket item number six. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Chair Sandlin, we will now go ahead and call in the Zoom speakers. The first one would be Christopher Williamson, followed by Helen Elloyan, and then Kaylin Sibaili. Go ahead, Christopher.

Good morning. I assume everyone can hear me. Thank you. So I represent I SHOULD TURN MY VOLUME. I REPRESENT WELLHEAD DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE DEVELOPER OF GOALS. AND WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN WORKING WITH COUNTY STAFF FOR QUITE A WHILE. AND MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE BASICALLY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUT INTO YOUR CODE. AND THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. AND GENERALLY WE the county's efforts across the board. I do have three just minor questions that perhaps staff can address when they come back. In section 8107, 49.2.1, which are the best general standards and requirements, under B, contact person, the last sentence says that there must have a business address within certain county, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Kern. And I just wonder what is the rationale for that? Any best project will have an emergency response plan with designated local people, if that's the issue. So I've just wondered why it couldn't be just an address in California. The second item is development standard key, concentration of systems. No battery within a quarter mile of each other. I wondered if that was a fire issue or why there's. That regulation and 3rd in item, I. Undergrounding of electrical utilities. The first word is all utilities. Just want to note that sometimes you cannot bury these things. They're either extremely high voltage or they're connecting to Edison facilities and they simply have to be above ground. Especially if you're building a switch station that will be turned over to Edison later. Finally, just a note that there are now vertical solar panels around California in some vineyards. These are literally vertical in agricultural areas. And that allows dual use. You can grow grapes or other things along with the solar panel. So that would not take a good part of the acreage out of production conceivably. So I just want to point that out as a newer version of solar panels. And those are my comments. Again, kudos to staff. A lot of work, a lot of details, a big learning curve on this whole industry that's come around in the last 10 years.

Thank you, Christopher. Your time is up.

That's the end of my comments. Thank you.

All right. Our next speaker is Helen Elloyan, followed by Kaylin Sivaili, and then April Zhang. Go ahead, Helen.

Good morning, planning commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this item. Sesame Consulting has extensive experience permitting best facilities both within and outside of the county. And we'd like to offer some feedback on this draft ordinance to help our county effectively support and promote renewable projects so as a land use consultant i cut my teeth here in the county and now i bring nearly a decade of experience working on these projects and industrial projects locally and across the state i've always had a soft spot in my heart for this county but at the end of the day the truth is we are often overlooked for renewable projects Due to a stigma that we're not business friendly. Now, I think that this ordinance is well intentioned and can be adjusted to strike the right balance of protecting land use and compatibility while positioning the county as a place to do business. While many of the proposed provisions, like I said, are very well intentioned, they do introduce some additional regulatory hurdles that can make development in our county more cumbersome, especially as it would be compounding an already uncertain Makaela Niles, Entitlement process requiring large upfront investments compared to other projects we've done in different jurisdictions. Makaela Niles, So I just want to say Kaylin will be completing the rest of my comments, but we're pertaining directly to the non-coastal zoning ordinance, it could be translated to the coastal ordinance where applicable. But I'll start with system modifications subject to a zoning clearance. So we're requesting clarification on provisions related to capacity maintenance. This would be the standard industry practice of maintaining not increasing capacity over time by adding supplemental battery units. As such, we would recommend that these maintenance activities, usually referred to as augmentation activities, be permitted ministerially through a zoning clearance, since there's typically no increase in the permitted best foundations and footprints, and they're typically the same character and size of their existing unit. um the next one goes back to the issue of surety so the current provisions and requirements um seem to be easily triggered by any permit action and it could create an ongoing administrative barrier without clear linkage to project risk these sensitive triggers create unnecessary compliance challenges and our clients have also noted that it is difficult to endorse the client or the county as additionally named so many groups refuse to do so Last thing on sureties, a lot of these projects are already subject to an offtake agreement. So they have to meet like stringent contractual obligations And typically provides agreements or other forms of financial insurance in these cases we recommend just simply requesting an agreement, the offtake agreement itself. Since there are existing mechanisms that cover the surety mining was reference, but the difference here is that mines don't have to bond for the full mine site being excavated up front, whereas this is asking for the full project scope up front. So our previous projects also have only been asked to decommission, not settled. Thank you, Helen.

Your time is up. Next is Kaylin, followed by April. Kaylin, go ahead.

Hello. Thank you for the time today. As Helen mentioned, I will be continuing the comment on behalf of SSB Consulting. Another point of concern that we have with the proposed best provisions are the CUP versus PDP requirements. The proposed requirement for a conditional use permit appears inconsistent with the county's broader stream leading efforts, which have focused on transitioning CUPs to plan development permits, PEPs. We encourage the county to revisit this approach to ensure alignment with its staff, previous guidance to the board and efficiency goals. Our 2nd point is height standards. The ordinance provisions allow exceptions for transmission towers, connecting to lines. However, not all lines connect to towers. For example, some utilize a with underground connections to existing high voltage lines. To remedy this, we recommend simply offering a clear exception for and tower heights. Our third comment is size limitations in cultural open space and rural ag zones. The proposed size limitations introduce unnecessary constraints. Existing lot coverage requirements, particularly the 5% cap in ag zones already regulate site size effectively. This additional restriction may unintentionally incentivize the sprawl of best facilities rather than promoting efficient cluster development. It could also force pending projects to reduce usable site area. We recommend removing subsection in its entirety as it is counterproductive. Number four is secondary containment requirements. The proposal that best facilities retain all fluids, including those generated during fire response, slash emergency scenarios is impractical and exceed standard practice. In our experience, most of us technology already built in secondary containment systems for feasible. Further under federal skill control and countermeasure and California of ground patrol transformers are not required to have secondary containment. Additionally, the proposed language introduces ambiguity and will impose requirements that are technically infeasible to clarify. All best sites we have worked on in both industrial and agricultural areas are designated with permissible services. The provisions encourage the implementation of impervious services in best areas. It would be infeasible to meet the requirement as well as the county's requirement for low impact development, such as sustainable stormwater management and runoff reduction. please note that discretionary development in the county is already subject to these requirements further full site paving would be both environmentally and operationally undesirable as it places considerable costs to the project would discourage renewable energy developers from developing these critically needed facilities in the county as such we suggest the commission remove this provision and defer to existing regulation pertaining to the issue thank you

Thank you, Kaylin. Our next speaker is April Zhang. Go ahead, April.

She lost.

April, I think when you get a chance, just go ahead and kind of like return back to the Zoom and we'll be able to put you in. April is the last speaker, Zoom speakers that we will be having for today. Chair Sandvin.

Should we give her 30 seconds?

Yes. Yeah. She's back.

You said she's back. Would staff like to present any closing remarks?

Thank you, Chair Sandlin. I'd invite Manager Sussman if she has anything further to add. But I'd be happy to respond to some of the public comment if now is an appropriate time to do so.

Sure.

First regarding Mr. Williamson's four items his first regarding the development standard subsection B and the contact persons this development standard rose from the desire to have a local contact person available to As Mr. Williamson noted, we do have an emergency response plan requirement and close coordination and some standards to coordinate with our fire department. But the intent of that contact person requirement is to provide a local resource in the event that that emergency operation response plan should be implemented. Regarding subsection P and the concentration of facility standards from Mr. Williamson, this addresses board desire to consider how these systems are concentrated and to provide a buffer or break between systems. And we believe the standard proposed provides a visual break and a distinction between systems as you're perhaps passing by them. Regarding subsection I and the undergrounding of utilities, this standard is consistent with other requirements for our ordinance that require undergrounding of utilities. The speaker and I believe it was Kaylin of CESPE both mentioned the height exception for Gentile Lions and that that might be a apparatus which could not be undergrounded. So staff's proposal accommodates requirements that can't underground when they do need to connect a Gentile line to a larger transmission line. There is a height exception for instances such as that. And then Mr. Williamson's last comment about vertical solar panels. We certainly understand that it's an emerging technology and that these systems are advancing constantly. Staff's proposal would not preclude the installation of vertical solar panels. There's no standard which would prevent them from installing. So we don't see any conflict there either. Regarding the comments from Ms. Olloyan from CESPE, she notes the system modifications with the zoning clearance. I'll need to refer back to my section perhaps FOR A MOMENT. BUT THERE ARE ALLOWANCES FOR BUT THERE ARE ALLOWANCES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF SYSTEM DIFFERENT TYPES OF SYSTEM MODIFICATION EITHER WITH A ZONING MODIFICATION EITHER WITH A ZONING CLEARANCE OR THROUGH A CLEARANCE OR THROUGH A DISCRETIONARY MODIFICATION. DISCRETIONARY MODIFICATION. SO HAPPY TO DIVE FURTHER INTO SO HAPPY TO DIVE FURTHER INTO THAT IF THE COMMISSION HAS ANY THAT IF THE COMMISSION HAS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE There was also discussion from Ms. Alloyan about the sureties and the required offtake agreements. Perhaps if the Commission would like to discuss that further, we'd be happy to, or if County Council's response was sufficient. There are lengthy and specific surety requirements proposed and how those respond to Ms. Alloyan's comments. And regarding the last speaker from CESPI, she noted the appropriateness of a CUP versus PD permit. This was something that staff considered during development of the project. The project continues the practice for the approval that was done for the one battery energy storage project that is entitled, that was approved with a conditional use permit for a 30-year term. Our ordinance is consistent with that and we believe that the permit term and type is appropriate for the use. SHE ALSO MENTIONED THE SIZE LIMITATION STANDARD. SO THAT STANDARD WILL SUPPLEMENT THE BUILDING LOT COVERAGE STANDARD FOR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS AND THE INTENT WITH THAT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE MINIMUM LOT AREA THAT'S PRESCRIBED BY THE LOT ZONING IS PRESERVED. outside of the permit area so in the example of an agricultural exclusive zoned parcel with a 40 or so acre minimum lot area they would need to preserve that much area as outside of the permit boundary to preserve the agricultural uses that that are on site And then lastly, for the comment regarding secondary containment, staff proposed that for inclusion to address as these technologies advance. We see that as an item which for public safety and best practice is considered as I mentioned, a best practice and we see it as appropriate to include as a measure which would supplement the existing standards that she mentioned and happy to delve farther into that if the Commission has further questions. But with that, I have no further comment. Thank you.

Any other questions of staff?

I did have one more. Hi. So the 30-year term CUP, especially, you know, for this last project that was approved that sort of informed the broader requirements that are being brought forth today, was this term or was the 30-year term based on something specific like useful life of the components that are being deployed? I'm just wanting to better understand where that 30-year term came from.

Thank you, Commissioner Hale, through the chair. PERMIT TERM FOR 30 YEARS AS YOU MENTIONED DOES CONTINUE THE WORK FROM THE APPROVAL THAT WAS ALREADY ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT STAFF BELIEVES IS THE BEST PRACTICE FOR THESE TERM LIMITS ACROSS THE STATE WE'VE BEEN MONITORING INITIATIVES FROM THE STATE GUIDANCE AND THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF SEEMS TO HAVE A useful life of 30 years so we feel that that's it was appropriately applied in the last permit term and appropriate to include as a permit term moving forward thank you i will now close the public hearing any discussion or motion commissioner kessley

JUST FOR DISCUSSION'S SAKE, GOING BACK TO THE BEST PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED RECENTLY BY OUR COMMISSION, I DO RECALL HAVING A LOT OF CONCERNS REGARDING SAFETY, INCLUDING DAMAGE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM IT. SO I DO FEEL THAT A LOT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IS WARRANTED AND IT WAS WHAT MADE ME FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT APPROVING THE PROJECT. That is one. Second, I'm disappointed to learn that best projects were approved in the industrial zones already. Some of the most valuable resources we have in our county are our agricultural land and our industrial properties, mainly because that's what sustains economic viability because it creates jobs. Without jobs, people don't work, they can't sustain themselves here, and why do we need energy if people can't sustain their lives. So I really am not supportive of including the alternative fuel production in the M2 and M3 zone for that reason. I'm also uncomfortable with creating another regulation and cost to a developer who wants to propose industrial with the non-residential solar canopy. So those conditions make it A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS THEY STAND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS OR MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION?

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER KESSLEY ON HER TWO ISSUES. I think maybe some modification needs to happen on those two.

Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve it just so we can get to a vote for the project.

I got a motion by Commissioner Cushion.

I'm sorry. Can we get clarification? What is the motion?

It's to approve case numbers PL24-0109 and PL240120.

Oh, so pre-staff's recommended actions? Yeah. OK. Sorry. I thought it was maybe like a preliminary motion. OK. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt.

May I suggest a modification to the motion that we remove the requirement or remove the M2, M3 industrial fuel production in that zone and also please remove the non-residential solar canopy requirement?

I'm okay with that.

We have a motion modified by Commissioner Kessley. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a second from Commissioner Boydston.

I see Ms. Hussman looking like she needs clarification.

I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to note that those two programs are driven by the general plan. I guess I would ask for some guidance from council about whether removing those would require a general plan amendment, given that they're driven by general plan programs.

That could be the case. I mean, I think it's absolutely appropriate for the Planning Commission to make its recommendation and then staff can take a look at that issue.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just raising for the record. Thank you.

We have a motion and we have a second. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Yes. Commissioner Boydston?

Yes.

Commissioner Kessley?

Yes.

Commissioner Ayala? Yes. Vice Chair Cushing?

Yes.

Chair Sandlin?

Yes. The motion passes 5-0. We'll now move on to item number seven, discussion. We'll move on to item 7A, report from Assistant Planning Director Curtis on the board actions and other matters.

Hi, thank you. Thank you, Chair Sandlin and members of the Commission. For board actions, I just want to report that the Board of Supervisors did approve the Ventura Ranch project this week, which had been in the pipeline for quite a while through the appeal process as well as the approval process. I ALSO JUST WANT TO REPORT YOUR NEXT MEETING WHICH IS GOING TO BE ON JUNE 4TH. YOU WILL BE HEARING THE CAMP ALANIM CUP MODIFICATION FOR NEW CAMP FACILITIES, INCREASED CAMPERS AND INCREASED EVENTS. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO ITEMS I HAVE TO REPORT OUT.

Thank you. Any other items that commissioners wish to discuss or introduce? Seeing none, I will adjourn the meeting.