Planning Commission - public_hearing

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting of June 18th, 2026. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Good morning. Commissioner Boyston?

Here.

Commissioner Kessley? Here. Commissioner Ayala is absent today. Vice Chair Cushing?

Here.

Chair Sandlin?

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

Chair Sandlin, I did not receive any public comments that's not related to our agendas today.

Thank you. The next item is the approval of the minutes for June 4th, 2026. Do we have any discussion or a motion to approve the minutes for June 4th, 2026?

I'll move to approve the minutes.

I'll second. We have a motion from Commissioner Kessley and a second from Commissioner Boydston. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Yes. Commissioner Boydston?

Yes.

Commissioner Kessley? Yes. Vice Chair Cushing?

Yes.

Chair Sandlin?

Yes. The next item is item 6A, case number CV24-0856. Appellant is Jeffrey P. Tinsley. The project description is an appeal of the amended notice of violation issued for the operation of an unpermitted commercial event venue on a parcel zone rural exclusive five acre minimum parcel size. The project location is at 85 Crestview Avenue in Camarillo, California. 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 written ex parte communication or has any other information to disclose regarding this agenda. Item 6A-CV24-0856. 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.

YES. COMMISSIONER BOYDSTON.

NO DISCLOSURES.

COMMISSIONER KESLEY. I HAVE NO DISCLOSURES. VICE CHAIR CUSHING.

NO DISCLOSURES.

CHAIR SANDLIN.

NO DISCLOSURES.

OKAY.

At this time, I'd like to now ask the County Council to make a brief statement of the applicable legal principles and requirements for this hearing item.

Thank you, Chair Sandlin, Assistant County Council David Edsel here, and I'd just like to give a brief prelegal brief preamble on some legal issues before we bring this proceeding. This is an appeal of a notice of violation issued by their County Resource Management Agency Code Compliance Division. The sole question for your commission today is whether to uphold, deny, or modify the NOV. Your commission should assess the evidence presented for this hearing and make a determination based on your own independent judgment whether the violation exists on the dates alleged. While you may consider the appeal points raised by the appellant, your commission is not limited by those points in assessing the appeal. And I'd also like to briefly address another procedural issue. Because this matter is an appeal violation, certain steps have been taken to protect the due process rights of the alleged violator in accordance with the law. An ethical screen has been put in place between myself and others in preparing this matter. I have not been involved with RMA staff in the preparation of this matter for hearing, nor have I had any communication with other county council or RMA staff working on this matter, so that I can be an impartial advisor to your commission. And so I'm here to answer your questions about procedure or general legal questions, but questions going more to the merits or the substance should be addressed to RMA staff or the appellant. Those are the main points I wanted to make. I believe. Council for the I will note that I was just informed that counsel for the alleged violator, given the attendance of four commissioners, will be requesting a continuance. I believe I'm you know, it's up to your commission how to proceed. I think the normal course would be allowed to allow the code compliance to present and to allow the alleged violator to present and request a continuance at that time. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE COMMISSION AWARE, I'LL DEFER TO THE CHAIR AND TO THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS, BUT I'VE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT THAT WILL BE THE REQUEST THAT WILL BE MADE BY THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU, COUNTY COUNCIL EDSALL. IF THAT IS THE, I MEAN, THIS IS THE APPEALANT'S APPEAL, SO IT'S HIS WISH TO CONTINUE IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE COUNTY, BUT WE WILL PROCEED AS YOU RECOMMEND.

Yeah, so it would at this point. It's a request. I would defer. I think the Commission can go either way. I think they're welcome to let code compliance begin their presentation and they can assess the continuance request at the time that the alleged violator later has their opportunity to present their case. But I also wanted to defer to your Commission on how best to assess that. I think from a legal standpoint, I think we should hear from I think we should probably should definitely hear from both parties on this request. So I think in my legal judgment, I would advise to allow code compliance to present their welcome to speak to the merits or and or to the continuance. And then at the time that the alleged violator can present, they can also present their request. So I think that would probably be the best way to proceed.

Investor right of seat and confer with the commission any suggestions or any type of comments from any other commissioners?

I would I would support a continuance. I would only say that I would hope since it is going to be continued, that the comments that we hear at this point are brief and to the point because we'll be revisiting it all later anyway.

He comes.

A question, are we voting at this point for the continuance or are we going to wait until we hear from?

Yes, it's at the discretion of your commission. I think before it would have to occur by a motion and be approved by at least three members of the commission today to continue. If that motion were to fail, the matter would proceed today as scheduled. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION I WOULD ADVISE THAT AT MINIMUM THAT WE SHOULD HEAR FROM BOTH PARTIES BEFORE SUCH A MOTION IS ENTERTAINED. AND THAT I THINK AGAIN I GOT THE REQUEST LITERALLY A SECOND BEFORE I SPOKE SO I WOULD SUGGEST AT MINIMUM WE HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES BUT I JUST DIDN'T I WANTED TO ADVISE THE COMMISSION THAT THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED SO.

YES I WOULD BE OPEN TO THE CONTINUATION IF WE CAN HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES FIRST.

I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES.

WOULD THAT STILL ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENTS? DO WE ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENTS TO CONTINUE ON THIS PROCESS NOW THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING A CONTINUATION?

WELL, I THINK SO WE SHOULD LET, AGAIN, BOTH SIDES SPEAK.

OTHERWISE IT'S A FULL HEARING AT THAT POINT, BASICALLY. AND THEN IT'S NOT REALLY A TRUE CONTINUANCE. You want to take a break and discuss?

Yeah, can I take a brief moment, Mr. Sandlin? Yeah, let's do that. Yeah, this sprung on me right before I spoke. Let's analyze this.

Luce, we're going to take a five, ten-minute break to discuss and analyze the continuance and proper process to give everybody a good due process and proper rights in this process. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, commissioners, Tiffany, Tiffany County, North County Council. I was listening upstairs and it's my understanding that there has been a request for continuance by the appellant. This council is that is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. What I would recommend, given that this is a quasi judicial matter, if your board is inclined to grant that continuance, I would not start the presentations of the hearing this time because so that all commissioners can hear it at the same time together. Otherwise, if the hearing is to start today, the commissioner that is missing will have to watch the tape and everything to be able to be fully prepared. That said, I would go ahead. and give any members of the public the opportunity to speak today if they'd like to speak, if that's the only time that they're going to be here. So I would open the hearing for that. Otherwise, I would ask, though, if the people wouldn't mind coming back to the future hearing when it's noticed so that the whole presentation can hear together. My other recommendation is that if code compliance IT HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THE IT HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THE CONTINUANCE THAT THEY GET THE CONTINUANCE THAT THEY GET THE CONTINUANCE THAT THEY GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THAT BEFORE YOU DECIDE ON VOTING BEFORE YOU DECIDE ON VOTING BEFORE YOU DECIDE ON VOTING ON WHETHER TO CONTINUE THE ITEM.

ON WHETHER TO CONTINUE THE ITEM. ON WHETHER TO CONTINUE THE ITEM. COUNTY COUNCIL, LET ME ASK COUNTY COUNCIL, LET ME ASK COUNCIL, LET ME ASK A QUESTION. A QUESTION. A QUESTION. IF WE GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT THE IF WE GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT THE IF WE GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TODAY ON THIS RIGHT TO SPEAK TODAY ON THIS

That is correct. The other commissioner would still have to watch those comments. The practical impact is, though this is a hearing on the appeal of the notice of violation, it still is a Brown Act meeting. So members of the public do have the right to speak on an agenda item if they'd want to do so today. But like I had said, my preference would be for all public comment to happen at that continued hearing. But I do recognize that this is a matter that is a concern to some of the constituents that are here and they may not be able to come to a future meeting. I don't know when the future meeting would be scheduled. So I would give them that option.

And then we'd give the appellant the right to rebuttal?

I would ask for that, the appellant to rebut at the future hearing.

At the future hearing.

And their attorney's nodding.

okay that sounds good all right so then would we um roll back this to item not on the agenda or or this still item on the agenda as public comments not on the agenda or item on the agenda

I would take them as part of this agenda item with the notice that the rest of it was being continued if that's the inclination for your commission to continue the item today. So my recommendation would be first to see if code enforcement has any objections to the item being continued so that you can hear those then give the members of the public that wish the opportunity to speak on this knowing that no action is being taken today and it's just giving public comment on the agenda item so that they can be heard because they're not able to come back at a future meeting and then vote on the continuance okay so as a matter of process you're saying public comment first then vote to continue or vote to continue and then public comment Either way you'd like to do it is fine.

I think we would do the vote to continue and then ask for public comments because that way it formalizes the...

PARTON THE INTERRUPTION, CHAIR SANDELIN, IF I MAY MAKE A COMMENT ON BEHALF OF CODE COMPLIANCE. I'M FRANCESCA VERDEEN, ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNCIL. I'M HERE WITH ADAM KOSTLEEN, ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTING THE CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION TODAY. AND I JUST WANTED TO NOTE FOR YOUR COMMISSION THAT UNDER PURSUANT TO YOUR COMMISSION'S BYLAWS, IT DOES REQUIRE YOUR COMMISSION TO OBTAIN COMMENTS FROM THE PARTIES REGARDING THE CONTINUANCE IN ADDITION TO THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OPINE ON THE CONTINUANCE REQUEST AS WELL. AND SO YOUR, AND REQUIRES GOOD CAUSE TO GRANT THE CONTINUANCE. AND SO THAT WOULD BE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.5.3 SUBSECTION 3 OF YOUR BYLAWS.

So a matter of process would be public comment first and then vote for continuance or not continuance.

Correct. With your with your bylaws, I would do it that way.

Yeah. If we're just doing it because there's one commissioner not here, what guarantees that we continue this to another meeting and another commissioner cannot be here? I mean, there's no guarantees that I don't know when we would put this on next time, but I just don't see the advantage to pushing it off when we have four commissioners here and it takes three to make a vote on it.

I guess that would be a no vote for you on the continuance then. So that would probably be a no vote for you on the continuance then. But, and as a matter of process, again, I just, we're still going out of order as we would uh this is very unique situation obviously you know we're still going to be going out of order um because usually we'd hear from county staff first and then we would hear from the appellant and then we would get the public comments at that point now we're just getting public comments and so um It's just an interesting situation. Do you think we should take another five minute break to discuss this a little better to find to get the right process down or move forward with public comment?

If I may, Chair Sandlin, IT'S UP TO YOUR COMMISSION TO IT'S UP TO YOUR COMMISSION TO DECIDE AT WHAT POINT TO DECIDE AT WHAT POINT TO CONSIDER THE CONTINUANCE REQUEST CONSIDER THE CONTINUANCE REQUEST BUT PURSUANT TO YOUR BYLAWS, BUT PURSUANT TO YOUR BYLAWS, IT STATES THAT PRIOR TO IT STATES THAT PRIOR TO DELIBERATING AND DECIDING THE DELIBERATING AND DECIDING THE REQUEST, THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUEST, THE COMMISSION SHALL SOLICIT COMMENTS FROM THE SOLICIT COMMENTS FROM THE REQUESTER AND ALL OTHERS REQUESTER AND ALL OTHERS REGARDING THE REQUEST. um appellant here to um state their request to your commission the reasons for their their request and um uh it's up to your commission to decide whether uh you know uh you you'd like code compliance to provide its its response to that or solicit comments from the public first and then give code compliance the opportunity but i think it makes sense to hear from the appellant and then code compliance can respond and solicit public comments but it's up to your commission

how about we do this how about we have county uh staff first present their thoughts on the continuance if they haven't already done so and then we'll have the appellant request the continuance uh and then we will ask for public comment and go from there how does that sound All right.

Good morning, Chair Sandlin, Commissioners. My name is Jonathan Wood. I'm the Code Compliance Director for the County of Ventura. County staff would object to this continuance. Since issuing the notice of violation to the appellant, they have continued to operate in violation of the notice of violation. And we felt that this continuance would just further that activity occurring.

And any comments from the commissioners? Would the appellant like to make their request? Good morning.

Say Island and commissioners, I'm here, Tom Cohen, on behalf of Jeff Tinsley, the colony of state. I'm their legal counsel. The reason for the request is this is a decision-making body of five people. We have four today that can make decisions on this appeal. This appeal is extraordinarily important. we're entitled under due process to a final action of five members of the board. There's a potential that this could be a two-two vote, which in and of itself is a tie, but it's also a denial of the appellant's request. So we believe due process warrants a full commission. I can't speak to the question of whether or not the next meeting or whatever meeting it is in the future that all five of you will be there, you're all servants to the county as appointed officials. So I would expect that it's rare to have only four members of the commission available at any one time. We are fully prepared to make our presentation, but I think fairness dictates that this matter be continued.

Any questions of the appellate? Commissioner Boydston?

I guess I just had a general question. Would you be willing in this interim period not to host events?

Commissioner Boyston, today we're here to hear about the appeal. To continue events right now, there's contractual obligations to continue those events that subject the appellant. If he does not hold those events to significant legal consequences. So I cannot commit to that today.

Conflicted on this one just because it does take a lot of time, effort, money to get to the appeal process to where you guys are today. And so as an appellant, if I was in your shoes, I would, if I granted a continuance, I'd want the continuance. How soon, if we did grant a continuance staff, could we get the next Planning Commission meeting to get on the calendar? When is the next Planning Commission meeting that's available?

July 9th would be the next Planning Commission meeting.

July 9th, which is roughly three weeks. Roughly three weeks. Okay. Commissioner Kessley.

How many events do you have scheduled between now and July 9th?

You don't know?

We don't have the calendar of events in front of us. Sorry, Commissioner.

Any other questions of the appellant? No questions passed. Now, I'd like to open up the public comment. Lucy, do we have any public comments or speakers on this item?

We do have a lot of public comments for this item. So would you like me to just go ahead and call them one by one now?

Yes.

Okay. All right. The first on my list is Martin Workins, followed by Dan Gisler, and then Teresa Olmos. Chair Sandlin, just wanted to double check. Are you still wanting to have them speak a minute or?

Yeah, one minute.

Per public speaker.

Okay, thank you very much.

Only one minute.

I have a lot to say. My property, my home is... The right property line is parallel to 85 Crestview's property line. And about 130 feet. So I have a lot to say. I have a lot of experience with the appellant. And I want to say that I can hear everything clearly into my home. I can hear the MC. introducing people. I can hear the DJ telling people to jump up and down and let's party. It's a three day event. There's a set up, there's a party and the tear down and when they do back to backs, like last weekend they did three events in three days. They're working until 11.30 at night and back Sunday morning, 6.15 in the morning. So I've seen all of the... Thank you, Martin.

Your time is up.

Okay.

I have a lot to say.

Yeah, I have the three videos. They're about 20 seconds each. The first one's a minute if you cut the first one. I lived in my house 15 years. I share a fence.

Okay, hold on a second. Jason? Please put in his video. We'll put your, we'll start your time when the video's done.

There you go. Go ahead.

Okay, so this is what I get weekend after weekend, and if it goes month after month and year after year, this isn't a one-off block party or a house party. You get all this noise, and I guess there's another video that's at night that everybody's screaming and yelling and lights and drones flashing. That's what I experienced. And we have to go indoors and turn up the TV set on the weekends. So again, that's now an ongoing nuisance and it's very loud and we have to live indoors on the weekends.

Thank you, Dan. Next is Teresa Olmos, followed by Steve Capuano and then Juliana Martinez.

Good morning, Board Chair Sandlin. Board of Supervisors and Compliance Director Mr. Wood. My name is Teresa Olmos and I live in 97 Calle Escalón Camarillo. I live a 100 feet away from all this noise. Every week, three times per week, the noise is very loud. The crowd is loud. Of course, it's a wedding. What can you expect? Weddings, most of the time. My husband and I have been suffering in our own home for so long. Our lives have been disrupted with loud music. Every single week, we are subjected to incredibly loud music and roaring crowds. It is so intense that we cannot hear our own television. We have completely lost our peaceful and quiet sanctuary.

Thank you, Teresa. Your time is up.

We need three minutes.

Okay, next is Steve Capuano followed by Juliana Martinez and then Ryan. Go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the board and support staff hearing the matter today. Since we're restricted down to one minute from our original three minutes, I'll address the matter of the continuance. I can probably speak on behalf of a lot of the neighbors, but we would oppose the continuance due to the fact that it's already been addressed. Mr. Tinsley is running seemingly unabated with these events. We're going to be forced to suffer through how many more weeks of back-to-back events. Mr. Workins has them setting up and tearing down three-day events, and traffic disruptions as well, where the rental trucks pull up and block lanes of Crestview Avenue, causing traffic disruptions. And that's in addition to the noise. So I would oppose the continuance.

Thank you, Steve.

Thank you.

Next is Juliana Martinez, Ryan Paul afterwards, and then Lydia Ivanova. Go ahead.

Hi, good morning. I live two blocks over from the party house. And these are some of my experiences. I'm a mother. I have three boys. And since this has been going on, from their bedroom windows, they've been able to watch people drunk, smoking drugs, smoking cigarettes, driving fast, burning out. being arrested, drunk people in their cars from partying. I don't know if it's attendees or if it's the staff of these parties, but I think that we all deserve to be at peace in our homes, especially when I'm trying to raise my three kids. And I just want to know, let you guys know that it's a safety issue. There's excessive drinking now in my neighborhood, excessive police presence now because of all of these issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Juliana. Next is Ryan Paul Tinsley followed by Lydia Ivanova and then Jeffrey Tinsley. Go ahead.

I would like to pass my time as of right now.

OK. Thank you. Next is Lydia Ivanova.

Same here.

OK. Jeffrey Tinsley. Next is Somerset Ruiz. Okay. Chuck Coher?

Yes.

Jen O'Neill?

Good morning. My name is Jen O'Neill. I'm a lifelong resident of Las Posas Estates, a licensed California realtor, and a mother of two young boys. I live five houses down from the colony estate where they face. I have personally experienced valet operations on my street, leaving no parking for residents and my mom who struggles with some handicap issues. I have had intoxicated guests parked in front of my home for hours, recently arrested two weeks ago. I have witnessed vendors and large trucks creating traffic and safety concerns as they enter and exit the property. These impacts do not stay within the estate's boundaries, they affect the entire neighborhood. As a mother, my concern is safety and many of the things that Juliana addressed. But since I'm short on time, I'm also going to mention that as a realtor, I also know buyers purchase homes and neighborhoods like Lost Postage Estates with the expectation that surrounding properties will remain residential in nature. And I have brought two forms as a realtor that would be filled out that would affect our neighborhood, including forms that discuss whether there is a nuisance in the neighborhood, whether there's any events in the neighborhood, commercial use, and things that will negatively affect.

neighbors thank you yeah your time is up next is karen o'neill and that would be followed by katie teague and then jennifer marabella villa afterwards

Yes, I'm Karen O'Neill, and I am the senior who has been very affected for this. I had to actually park two blocks away going uphill to be able to get home to my house. I've also had a major issue with the safety with the valet parking. I know this one event, they use valet parking pros. And I watched the drivers struggle to back up onto Crestview because it is a dangerous area to back up onto. The safety issues are continuous between the big trucks trying to go very tightly to turn into there if they are dropping off stuff. But half the time they're dropping it off on Cali Bella Vista and they're not dropping it off parked next to a sidewalk. They're partially in the intersection and actually carrying stuff two blocks away across a large street with traffic going up and down Las Pozas and Spanish Hills. It is an extreme safety issue for all. As for the noise, I can actually sometimes hear it on Avocado, and that's a ways away.

Thank you, Karen.

Your time is up.

Next is Katie Teague and then Jennifer Maravilla.

My name is Katie Teague. I have multiple sclerosis. Like many of the houses, I don't have air conditioning, so I have to have my windows open. This map represents all the areas that are impacted by this party house. And I think it's self-explanatory. It's a third of a mile in radius. Thank you.

Thank you, Katie. Next is Jennifer.

Hi, I'm with Marvia Gardens. I represent four other venues here today. And we think this continuance is a bad idea. These people have put up with a lot. They've taken time today. They've prepared. And whereas the colony has been allowed to just run amok for years. And so they're depending on you to protect them. If you were living in their neighborhood, you would want to get this settled. So I'm going to encourage you to do that today.

Thank you. Chair Sandlin and planning commissioners, our next speakers would be speakers in Zoom. If I may, the first one is Nicole Nielsen, followed by Markham Caldwell and then Eric Boron.

Hi, this is Nicole Nelson, I would like to pass my time and save it for the hearing.

Okay, thank you, Nicole. How about Markham Caldwell, then Eric Warren, and then Carrie is a Geary. Markham, are you ready? Okay, um, I don't see Marcon online yet.

Oh, can you hear me now?

Yes. Good morning, Marcon. Please go ahead.

Hi. I was just concerned about this colony of states operating from a health and life safety standpoint because in the staff report it indicated that there were some of the structures that were being used on site for the parties and also there was a number of up to 400 people who could uh potentially have a party there but typically the amount of people is around 100 and i was just concerned that the continuance would allow for potential harm to come to whatever unsuspecting person is uh attending the event and there's any sort of like fire safety issue or you know sprinklers uh not properly installed because it's not a commercial building it's just intended for residential use So those were my primary concerns with the continuance going for this.

Thank you, Markham. Your time is up. Our next speaker is Kari Isageri, followed by Edward B., and then Jonathan Villarde. Hello? Okay, Kari, go ahead.

Hi there. I'm just speaking on, um, actually I did a wedding, I'm a wedding planner and I did a wedding at the colony estate a few weeks ago. Um, I honestly was a little bit nervous because of all of the things that have been said. However, my experience was opposite of that. It was absolutely just a great seamless day. Um, Both the owner of the venue is extremely, extremely courteous from what I saw of the neighbors. He even had a sound technician out there to ensure that the decimals of the music didn't go over a certain amount. And we did have a shuttle. that brought the guests in. So the guests were parking at a parking lot down the way that they have contracted with. Everything about it, from my perspective, was extremely professional. Thank you, Karin.

Your time is up. Next is Edward B followed by Jonathan Bilarde. Edward, are you... Edward, are you there?

Hi, this is Eric. Yeah, hi.

Hi, Eric. Go ahead.

Hi. Yeah, I just wanted to echo the comments that were just made a second ago. We are a floral decor business that has done a couple weddings now at the Colony Estates recently, and I can't speak to anything that happened before a few weeks ago, but... As of recently, when we were there again, the venue operators were very professional. We had parking provided on site. There was no need to be parking on streets out in front of the property. Even at the end of the night, when we got back to do the breakdown, the noise was minimal. The music had been shut off by 930. So it seems like the venue is making every possible effort to try to mitigate these different issues and to try to make everybody happy. So just wanted to chime in on behalf of colony estates and say that it seems like they are definitely taking to heart a lot of the complaints that they've heard.

Okay, thank you, Eric. The next one is Edward B., followed by Jonathan Velarde, and then Maria Natera.

Hi, can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can. Go ahead.

Hi. Yeah, so my name is Edward, and, you know, I just recently had my own wedding at the Colony Estate. And kind of going off of what the person before me said, that, you know, they do take into consideration the entire neighborhood. You know, they're not operating just as a venue. They really have opened their home to create a place where families come together and memories are made. And it's something that we will remember for the rest of our lives, and that's because the colony has played a really big role in that. And again, I just want to personally attest to the care professionalism that the owners of the colony of state take into what they do in the neighborhood. So if I could, I'd respectfully ask that you consider not only the concerns being discussed today, but also the positive impact Colonial State has on couples, families, and the many people that have celebrated life's most important moments there. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. The next, Jonathan Velarde is not in Zoom. Same thing with Maria. So we'll go ahead and go for Katie Hagee. Katie, are you there? Go ahead. Okay, if Katie is not ready, how about Sam, Sam Heredia? Sam, are you there? Okay, so if Sam is not ready yet, let me go ahead and call Charlotte Allison.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Charlotte. Hi, I'm a neighbor. I live at 74 and I've lived here my whole life. I want to say that I have not experienced the traffic issues that other people were describing. I've also seen the owners. Walking around the property to make sure that the sounds are within the property. They are tracking it throughout all their events. They're very professional and if we had an issue, I would be the first to say it. I've also seen that they require shuttles to have all their guests park at other locations and come in. The owners have also personally gone to the neighbors and asked if we have any concerns and have been going above and beyond to make sure that they can make the neighborhood better. So they're bringing business to Camarillo and yeah, they're doing as much as they can.

All right, thank you, Charlotte. Next one is Sam Heredia. Sam, are you ready? Okay, maybe he's not ready yet. How about Katie Hagee? Okay, it seems like Care Sandling and Planning Commissioners, it seems like they don't want to speak. I haven't heard anything, but it seems like they are online. Those were the public speakers that I have for 6A.

Thank you, Secretary Luce. At this time, if the applicant or the applicant's attorney would like to rebuttal. Are there any last comments?

Thank you, Chair Sandlin.

At this time, we'll reserve rebuttal. In the event that the hearing goes forward today, we'll reserve that for after all the presentations and any additional speakers. Otherwise, if this is continued, which we believe is appropriate and necessary to ensure my client's due process rights are not violated, we would reserve a rebuttal for a future hearing date. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any discussion? I just want to make sure I'm not going out of order here in regards to anything else. Kind of unique situation here.

Chair Sandlin, staff would have a very brief rebuttal specifically on the issue of the continuance. Yes. First, we would note in response to some of the statements that have been made as regards to contractual obligations that the appellant may or may not have entered into during the CONTINUANCE PERIOD. AS A MATTER OF LAW, CONTRACTS MADE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, INCLUDING POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF STATUTES OR ORDINANCES OF MUNICIPAL BODIES SUCH AS THE COUNTY ARE MADE AT THE PERIL OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES AND CAN BE VOID as to public policy so we would submit that purely as a matter of law that would not be a sufficient reason to grant a continuance and further as a secondary reason given that the standard for a continuance under the bylaws is good cause we would submit that Your Commission is empowered to make decisions on issues including these quasi judicial hearings like these violation appeals with three members a quorum is present and It's not our understanding that the the notion of good cause is traditionally expanded to entitle Individuals to a hearing of a full body where a quorum is already present So that that would be our position on on the continuance request as a matter of law

Thank you, staff. I'm gonna defer back to council just to make sure we are on any rebuttal to staff's comments on that and any other process we need to follow to make sure.

Thank you, Chair Sandlin. Commissioners, we've been currently proceeding pursuant to Rule 2.5.3 of the bylaws. So we've been specifically allowing comment and addressing the issue of a continuance. I think you've adequately solicited comments according to what the bylaws mandate. At this time, I think the chair can entertain a motion for a continuance. And then depending on how that motion proceeds, we would either go forward with the hearing on the motion today Or if the continuous motion passes, then it would be continued. So at this point, it's up to your commission to discuss and decide whether to act on the continuance.

Thank you, County Council. At this time, I'd like to ask my commissioners if they have a motion for continuance or any discussion to bring up.

Initially thought a continuance was appropriate. I'm not so sure now I think we as a body with four people up here all prepared with the with the public here and with no guarantees that that events aren't going to continue to happen until July 9th at a at any rate I Just don't feel that at this point. We should continue. Let's just get this done. I

Chair Sandlin, I agree with Scott. We have no guarantee that the next commission hearing we would have five people here. And if that's the only reason we're not continuing, I don't think that's a valid reason. Commissioner.

I'm in agreement with my colleagues on this one.

Do we have a motion from any of the commissioners?

Yeah, I would, because the request was made, I would suggest given, you know, if there was an inclination for continuance, someone should move. Given the statements of the commissioners, there should probably be a motion for denial of the request for continuance and then see if there's a second and proceed that way.

Go ahead. I'd like to make a motion to deny the continuance.

Commissioner Cushing has a motion to deny the continuance.

I'll second that.

There's a second by Commissioner Boydston. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Commissioner Boydston?

Yes.

Commissioner Kessley? Yes. Vice Chair Cushing?

Yes.

Chair Sandlin?

Yes.

Motion passed.

So, again, as a matter of procedure, I'm going to defer to counsel. How do we restart this thing and allow both the, I guess, staff would then make presentation, I assume?

Yes, correct, Chair Sandlin. You know, with the request for the continuance that came in, And we, you know, pursuant to the bylaws, it says, you know, that should be addressed at any time the chair deems appropriate. So we addressed it at the top. I think that was correct. And at this point, we just proceed with the hearing as we would normally. And I believe the next step, I was able to address some legal issues at the top. And I believe the next step would have code compliance to present their case on the merits to the commission. And we just proceed as normal as if the continuance issue had not come up.

so so how about the public comments um would people re-comment or was there public comment i think they only get one public comment is that correct

I think in this instance, again, pursuant to the bylaws, basically for a continuance request, it requires the chair hear from parties regarding the continuance. County Council North indicated that if people can't make another one, they're welcome to comment on the merits. But I would advise that since we were focusing on the continuance pursuant to that provision of the bylaws previously, that we're starting this hearing on the merits anew and that parties that wish to speak again are who I would. allow them to do so just because that was in regard to the merits or excuse me that was in regard to the continuance this is in regard to the merits.

And in doing so they'd all have to fill out a speaker card again correct?

No, I wouldn't think so. I believe Secretary Luz was reading people, names that signed up for this item on the merits, giving them the opportunity to speak to the continuance specifically, obviously allowing them to speak on the merits that they so wanted. But I believe, Chair, the best course forward would be Secretary Luz to simply proceed with the people that signed up to speak just as if the continuance issue had not come up.

Sounds good. Thank you. County Council Edsel. Commissioner Boydston.

Just had a question. The other way it seems to me we could do public comments would be for those that passed thinking that they would be able to come back at a future hearing and comment. We could only hear those people as opposed to hearing everybody again. Because we've heard a number of people already.

I will leave that to the discretion of the chair and the commission. I think it would be fine for the chair for efficiency and expediency to only require new speakers to speak if they so chose. I would suggest speakers that spoke specifically as to the continuance be given another opportunity to speak. But I leave it to the discretion of the chair to decide that.

I'LL LEAVE IT TO DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONER BOYCE IS IN FAVOR OF NOT HAVING THE REDO OF THE SPEECHES AND COMMISSIONER KESLEY OR COMMISSIONER KUSHING DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?

I WOULD AGREE THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW THE SPEAKERS WHO SPOKE SPECIFICALLY TO THE CONTINUES TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK AGAIN.

Commissioner Kessley says the commissioner, the speakers that spoke directly about the continuance to be allowed to speak again, the ones that spoke on the item would then not be allowed to speak again. That to me seems appropriate. Commissioner Cushing?

Yeah, I agree.

Do we need to make a motion? no that that how to conduct the meeting and public speaking is at the discretion of the chair so no no motions needed okay great all right at this time i'd like to ask code compliance direct any other questions or comments from the commission at this time i'd like to ask code compliance director mr wood to please proceed with your presentation

Good morning Chair Sandlin and Commissioners. My name is Jonathan Wood. I'm the Code Compliance Director for the County of Ventura. We are presenting your Commission evidence pertaining to the appeal of Code Compliance amended Notice of Violation for case number CV24-0856 this morning. PURSUANT TO THE NONCOASTAL ZONING ORDINANCE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE NCZO SECTION 8111-7.2, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION OF THE NCZO AS STATED IN THE MENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR OPERATING AN UNPERMITTED COMMERCIAL EVENT VENUE. Unlike a discretionary application that would typically come before your commission for review, this matter does not involve the consideration of project conditions, operational modifications, or potential mitigation measures. Your commission is not being asked to evaluate how a future use may be conditioned or approved. Your commission's role in this hearing is to decide whether or not the cited violations existed at the time the amended notice of violation was issued. The subject property is a 3.38 acre lot located at 85 Crestview Avenue in Camarillo, California, near the intersection of Crestview Avenue and Valley Vista Drive. The property is within the unincorporated area of Ventura County and is identified as APN parcel number 152-0-160-085. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS RULE EXCLUSIVE OR RE UNDER THE COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN AND IS ZONED RE5 ACRES, WHICH IS INTENDED FOR RULE RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER SPECIFIED USES ON LARGE LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA AND IS SURROUNDED BY RULE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE and one property immediately to the west are in the unincorporated county and zoned RE5 acres and developed with residential uses. Properties to the east and farther west are located within the city of Camarillo zoned RE1 acre and developed with residential uses. Properties to the south are located within the city of Camarillo zoned R110 and developed with residential uses. These zoning and land use maps are included in the staff report as exhibit one. THE RULE EXCLUSIVE OR RE ZONE PERMITS RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED USES AS DOCUMENTED IN THE USE MATRIX WHICH IS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT 2. COMMERCIAL EVENT VENUES, BANQUET FACILITIES, CONFERENCE CENTERS AND SIMILAR COMMERCIAL EVENT RELATED USES ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE RE ZONE. NO EQUIVALENT USE DETERMINATION, PERMIT VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ENTITLEMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED AUTHORIZING THE COMMERCIAL EVENT VENUE USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NCZO Section 8107-46 regulates outdoor events to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. This section allows outdoor events in the agricultural exclusive, rural agricultural, open space, and commercial plan development zoning districts. Importantly, however, outdoor events are not allowed in the subject RE zone and this in the NCZO section does not apply to the subject property. Beginning in 2024, the Code Compliance Division received multiple complaints alleging that the subject property was being operated as a commercial event venue. Complaints indicated that commercial events were occurring on the property with increasing frequency and intensity over approximately the last two years, resulting in substantial impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. reported negative impacts on the neighbors and the community at large from the repeated commercial events being held at the subject property include amplified music, DJ announcements, professional lighting, increased traffic and congestion within the neighborhood, and valet parking operations. Complaints further allege that neighboring residents experienced repeated disturbances that adversely affected their quiet enjoyment and the use of their properties. Code compliance staff reviewed marketing materials and websites associated with the property, which is advertised as the Colony Estates. As defined in the advertisement, a luxury wedding and event venue available for weddings, receptions, celebrations, executive retreats, networking events, gala dinners, holiday parties, and other commercial gatherings. Promotional material described the property as offering exclusive use of the state wedding planning services, valet parking coordination, vendor management, overnight accommodation, and event spaces capable of accommodating up to 450 guests with all weather availability, tents, cocktail receptions, indoor and outdoor dinners, dancing, and professional lighting and sound systems to keep the celebration going late into the night. The materials included alleged testimonials from clients who claimed to have held events at the subject property. Websites and marketing materials are as of June 2nd, 2026, still active and available to purchase event packages or rentals at the subject property. The marketing materials and websites are included in the staff report as exhibit 3.1 through exhibit 3.8. SINCE APPROXIMATELY MAY OF 2023, THE VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RESPONDED TO THE PROPERTY ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS REGARDING NOISE-RELATED COMPLAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS OCCURRING ON SITE. ACCORDING TO INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, A CITATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 415 SUBSECTION 2 DISTURBING THE PEACE WAS ISSUED TO THE APPEALANT ON APRIL 3, 2026. The sheriff's office also provided evidence documenting multiple large gatherings at the property, including deputy observations and body-worn camera footage showing amplified music, significant number of attendees, valet parking operations, and professional lighting. Documentation of code compliance and the Ventura County Sheriff's Department complaints and observations are as of June 2nd, 2026, are documented and included in the staff report as exhibit five through one through 5.20. Based on the investigation and evidence obtained, staff determined that the property was being and continues to be regularly advertised, held out to the public, and utilized as a commercial event venue without authorization under the NCZO. An amended notice of violation was issued to the property owner on May 19th, 2026. The notice identifies two violations, NCZO Section 8101-3.1, which provides that no land shall be used or maintained for any purpose except as specifically provided and allowed by the NCZO. The operation of a commercial event venue including the hosting of receptions, corporate events, and other third party gatherings for compensation is not a use authorized within the rule exclusive or RE zone. By utilizing the property for a use that is not permitted by the NCZO, the property owner is maintaining the property in a manner contrary to Section 8101-3.1. Additionally, NCZO Section 8105-1.3 Subsection A which states that no use is allowed unless it is expressly listed within the applicable use matrices contained in the Ventura County NCZO section 8105-4 and 8105-5, or has been determined to be an equivalent use pursuant to other provisions of the NCZO. The use matrices applicable to the RE zone do not identify commercial event venues, banquet facilities, conference centers, or similar commercial event related activities as permitted uses. No county determination has been made that the subject use constitutes an equivalent permitted use to any allowable use in the RE zone. And no permit, variance, or other entitlement has been issued authorizing the operation of a commercial event on the property. The amended notice of violation is included in the staff report as exhibit four. Since issuance of the amended notice of violation, evidence indicates that commercial event activities have continued to occur on the property. Resource Management Agency staff held a teleconference with the Appellant's legal counsel on May 22nd, 2026. During that phone call, the Appellant's legal counsel informed county staff that his client had indicated that events would continue to occur through July 2026 due to existing contractual obligations. COUNTY STAFF CONTINUE TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS REGARDING AMPLIFIED MUSIC, TRAFFIC CONGESTION WITHIN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, LARGE NUMBER OF ATTENDEES AND OTHER EVENT RELATED ACTIVITIES. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OBTAINED SINCE THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING. THE VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS RESPONDED TO THE PROPERTY AT LEAST SEVEN ADDITIONAL OCCASIONS AS OF JUNE 2, 2026. THESE ARE INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBITS 5.12 THROUGH 5.19 AND 5.20. On May 31st, 2026, a second criminal notice to appear was issued to the appellant for violation of California Penal Code section 415 subsection two for disturbing the peace. Code compliance has received two additional complaints regarding activities occurring on the property as of June 2nd, 2026. Additionally, a wedding planner contacted code compliance regarding an event scheduled for June 12th, 2026, seeking information concerning the status of the notice of a violation. The additional evidence further supports staff's determination that the property is in violation of NCZO sections 8101-3.1 and 8105-1.3 subsection A. The evidence demonstrates that the property continues to be advertised and operated as a commercial event venue despite the county's issuance of the amended notice of violation and follow-up meetings with both the appellant and legal counsel. EXHIBIT 3.1 IS AN ARTICLE PREPARED BY KATIE RINGHAND ON THE CALIFORNIA WEDDING DAY WEBSITE. EXHIBIT 3.4 IS THE COLONY ESTATES INSTAGRAM PAGE THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE UNIQUE AND TIMELESS VENUE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LUXURY WEDDINGS, EVENTS AND MORE. EXHIBIT 3.6 IS FROM TOOLEY WHICH HIGHLIGHTS THE POPULAR LOS ANGELES WEDDING VENUES AND HOW MUCH THEY COST. THE COLONY ESTATES IS FEATURED HIGHLIGHTING THE VARIOUS EVENT COSTS. THESE COSTS START AT $23,000 INCLUDING SECURITY COSTS, RESTROOM TRAILER AND SECURITY DEPOSIT. Exhibit 3.7 is from Zola, a website that identifies the colony estates with the subject property address. Information includes up to 400 guests and details about the property. These exhibits demonstrate that the subject property is being advertised as a commercial event venue. All the exhibits mentioned are included in the staff report. Exhibit 3.A from the Colony States website. The top of the website states, for luxury events in Southern California, exclusive weddings, special events, and productions. The property in the photograph is the residence that is located at the subject property address. There is an option to check pricing and availability. Exhibit 3.A shows a picture of the appellant and his partner with the heading, meet your host. Welcome to the Colony Estates, our home. We're Jeffrey and Lydia, and this private residence is where we live, host, and personally oversee every celebration from first tour to final toast. Exhibit 3.8 calls out what makes it special, including continue your celebration until 2 a.m. indoors. Ideal for dessert service, drinks, and late night dancing. Exhibit 3.8 calls out exclusive holiday celebrations that impress, cocktail receptions, seated dinners, and dancing for 20 guests to 400. These exhibits demonstrate, again, that the subject property is being advertised as a commercial event venue. All exhibits are included in your staff report. The following series of short video clips provide visual and audio documentation of events occurring on the subject property.

Go through the steps. Absolutely. We're following your rules. We're one team. They're protecting the people. They are protecting the people. I understand you guys. Honestly.

I'm just curious at this point, why are people coming in?

Oh, because valet. Valet. So the valet's going. We had an agreement with the church. We paid them for the spots. The valet's parked here, so they go and get the car and then bring it back. Yeah.

Is this your party?

I'm Monique.

Hi. I'm with the property event manager. Oh, okay, great. Hi.

Yes, yes.

We just got a noise complaint. Okay.

I understand, but... We just turned down and we took bass out. We're following to be under 65 decimals. We know that we studied for the sound check and we are in county area, but he did just take off four speakers. Okay. We are moving inside in one hour.

Okay, sounds good. Yes, sir.

My name's Sonia. Hi. So I'm here to support. Of course, yeah, no worries.

I just came, we got a call, so I just came to deliver the news. Yes, sir.

No problem. I just told my DJ I was just with him, so took off the bass and turned off four more speakers. Cool. And then we are moving the party inside, and we will not be, yeah, literally, like, he wants to move in inside in 45 minutes. Sure, cool. Sounds good. So definitely want to.

Okay. Thank you. Everybody make your way to the dance floor. Let's go. Yeah, one more minute. Let's go. We love you. Thank you. Group photo to the next floor. Everybody, let's go.

Come on, let's go. Everybody, thank you. Oh, here she comes again.

Cool, there we go. It's a nice venue for a wedding. Did you get her name?

I can't feel my knees.

Yeah. They're eating, they're doing the speeches, and then wives dance, and then that's it. Mother, daughter, and then, yeah.

How big is today's wedding? How many people today? We're not sure how many people are in there. What's the most you guys can fit in here?

Well, we can actually fit like 400 or something like that. You know, yeah. City, the county, all this stuff right now.

And in the meantime, we're managing, these are not parties. You know what I mean?

We have everything professionally managed, right?

From the sound, monitoring it, to the... We have security. We have transportation. You know, don't cause traffic issues because everybody parks off-site and we shut it in.

We bring restrooms in.

The whole shebang. This is, you know, we love giving people, doing these weddings for people and they're not crazy parties, you know. And we keep it under control. Though he's right. There was one event where no bueno. Not good.

You know, and I agree. I agree 100%.

Hello. Hi.

It's not far. It's a wedding. I'm the planner, Lydia. Nice to meet you. Yes, we will be done at 9.30. Do you want me to reduce the sound?

Yeah.

GOOD QUESTION.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT NEITHER DISPUTES NOR PRESENTS EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE CONTENTION THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN HELD OUT, ADVERTISED AND USED AS A COMMERCIAL EVENT BUSINESS FROM AT LEAST 2024 TO THE PRESENT. was and remains in violation of the NCZO. A commercial event venue use at the subject property is not authorized in the RE zone and no permit is available to authorize the use. Consequently, the applicant cannot obtain a permit or authorization for the commercial event venue as in its current state pursuant to the existing NCZO. The only issue before the commission is whether the cited violations existed at the time the amended notice of violation was issued based on advertising materials, event bookings, sheriff's office observations, and other evidence contained in the record. Staff concludes that the property was operating and continues to be operated as an unpermitted commercial event venue in violation of NCZO sections 8101-3.1 and 8105-1.3 subsection A. Based upon the information provided, code-compliant staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. Certify that the Commission has reviewed and considered this staff report and all exhibits thereto, and has considered all comments, evidence, and testimony received during the public hearing process. uphold the Code Compliance Director's determination that the property is in violation of the Ventura County Code NCZO Section 8101-3.1 and Section 8105-1.3 Subsection A, as stated in the Minden Notice of Violation, also attached as Exhibit 4 in the staff report. Deny the appellant's appeal and this determination or of this determination and deny any refund of appellant's appeal fees paid for this appeal. Specify that the Secretary of the Planning Commission is the custodian and 800 South Victoria Avenue, California 9309 is the location of the documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. Again, unlike a discretionary application that would typically come before your commission for review, this matter does not involve the consideration of project conditions, operational modifications, or potential mitigation measures. Your commission is not being asked to evaluate how a future use may be conditioned or approved. Your commission's role in this hearing is to decide whether or not the cited violations existed at the time the amended notice of violation was issued. For members of the public who wish to speak, use the provided link. Please press the raise hand button on Zoom now and you will be connected at the appropriate time. If participating by telephone, please press star and then nine to be queued for this agenda item 6A. With that, staff is available along with the planning division and county council to answer any questions your commission may have.

One brief addition, Chair Sandlin. We have received over the past few days, and it should be available to your commission as well, communications from appellant, including their counsel, which have raised a couple of additional legal questions which were not presented above and beyond the plain facts of the case. So I'd just like to highlight those for for you as well. You may have seen in those communications that a due process argument was raised by the appellant, arguing that potentially the county could be stopped or prevented from holding the property to be in violation based on communications or conversations which staff had previously had with the appellant about potential ways to bring the property into compliance as a legal matter there's a significant chain of California case log going back to Supreme Court cases in the 1970s including the Pettit decision it's there is a It's not the excuse me the doctrine of equitable estoppel is simply not available against a governmental entity to stop enforcement of a zoning a generally applicable zoning law as against a property in violation. And we can certainly provide those pin sites at request. Additionally, there was a question raised in communications as to whether or not a complaint-driven mode of enforcement was appropriate or otherwise might constitute potential discriminatory or partial enforcement. We would also note that, again, California Supreme Court cases going back to the 90s, the Maguria decision, among others, There would need to be some showing that there was an invidious discrimination as regards enforcement against this property versus non-enforcement against other properties. There's been no, to my knowledge, showing by the appellant on their notice of appeal that there was any discriminatory either intent or impact here. just that they're unhappy that their property was being enforced against, whereas others might not have been. And as a pure legal matter, we would submit on behalf of code enforcement that that doesn't rise to the level of barring your commission from sustaining the notice of violation. Thank you.

Any other questions of the staff from the commission? County Councilor, do you want to elaborate on staff's last comment in regards to the legal matters?

The last comment regarding what your commission needs to decide? What was the question that you had?

Just the legal questions that were brought up by the appellant's attorney and the documentation that was provided and the challenges to the violation.

Yeah, certainly. And this, since this is an enforcement matter, I generally defer the, it's basically the resource management agency, you know, in a sense, prosecuting a violation against the violator. I'm here to advise on procedure, general legal issues, but I would defer to them on, you know, I haven't been involved in the preparation of this or anything like that. So I would certainly, you know, you can hear from them, you can hear from the appellant on the issues, and it's up to your commission to ultimately decide those issues.

And no questions of the staff I think at this time. No questions. Let's see here. Would the appellant like to make a presentation?

Thank you, Chair Sandlin and members of the Planning Commission. Just one procedural request before I get started. There's four of us that intend to provide information to you this morning uh as part of our presentation you know we have 15 minutes allotted but if there is a an opportunity to extend that we would appreciate some additional time just to to present our case so that you have all the information you need to make a an informed decision this morning yeah how much time you're requesting you know, maybe an additional five minutes is probably all we'll really need.

That seems appropriate.

Okay, thank you. So we're here to appeal the amended notice of violation. We ask, excuse me, the commission to vacate the NOV or in the alternative to enter into a compliance agreement with enforcement stayed pending the county zoning code update, which is expected to be completed later this year. Our case rests on four independent grounds. Any of them standing alone justifies relief. Together, they present a compelling case that this enforcement action is legally wrong, factually unsupported, and inconsistent with the county's own conduct and regulatory direction. Before the legal arguments, the commission should understand what the colony estate actually is because the NOV proceeds from a fundamental mischaracterization. This is a permanently constructed owner occupied private residence estate. Mr. Tinsley has lived here for six and a half years. The main building is 9,290 square feet across three floors. The property is 3.3 acres in size or approximately 15 times the size of the typical residential property in the area. The entire residential facing perimeters enclosed by continuous eight foot masonry walls with the 16 foot pillars and 17 foot gates. every guest arrives by shuttle from a remote off-site parking facility no guest vehicles are permitted on the street and licensed security is present at every event here's the most important fact i think for this entire proceeding we have seven neighbors who live directly across the street from this property who've signed statements in your packet confirming specifically the may 31st event caused them no disturbance whatsoever so that the people closest to this property the ones with the most to lose have indicated support that is the property the county is seeking to penalize Our first and third grounds of our legal arguments are, at their core, a single argument. The law already permits this use, and the county zone planning division confirmed it. Section 8105-4 of the zoning ordinance, last amended by the board just eight months ago, expressly lists assembly use as a CUP-eligible use in the RE zone. No zone change, no general plan amendment, no new ordinance is required. The permitting pathway already exists. The colony estate qualifies as an assembly use. The zoning ordinance defines it as a building or structure where groups voluntarily meet to pursue common social, educational, or other interests. Invited guests gather in permanent buildings or structures for private social occasions. The definition fits. The NOV characterizes these events as outdoor events, but that characterization is legally incorrect. The zoning ordinance definitions of assembly use and outdoor events are mutually exclusive. An outdoor event requires that primary activities occur outside of structures. they do not hear the colonies of states eight foot perimeter walls meet the zoning ordinances own definition of a structure walls over seven feet in height when guests gather on the grounds there within the walls of the structure not outside of one section 810746-46.1 confirms this the outdoor framework The outdoor events framework does not apply where primary activities occur within dwellings or structures. The Ventura County Planning Division specifically advised Mr. Tinsley that an assembly UCUP was the appropriate and viable permitting pathway for these operations. This is not an offhand comment. It is a substantive representation by the agency responsible for administrating the zoning ordinance. If the Planning Division had believed this was simply illegal and unpermittable in the RE zone, it would not have identified a permitting pathway. The owner relied on that representation. The NOV is, in substantial part, a direct consequence of acting in good faith on the county's own guidance. Even if a formal CEP is required, the Colony Estate has already implemented, at its own initiative and expense, every operational standard a cup would impose on noise advanced engineering acoustics conducted a full ambient and sound propagation study in february of 2026 and they've done additional studies since operations comply with county decibel limits every entertainment provider signs a sound compliance agreement with a hard 10 pm outdoor music cutoff and real-time monitoring at every event and Dr. Hale, who is here, will present the technical findings in more detail. On traffic, there is no guest parking on-site or on public streets. Every guest arrives by shuttle from a remote off-site lot. Non-essential vendor trucks are required to clear the property before guests arrive, and vehicle counts are submitted to the venue 14 days in advance. On safety, Licensed security is required at every event. Certificates of insurance are required from all clients and vendors, naming the colony estate as an additional insured. This is not a venue asking the commission to speculate about whether conditions can be met. This is a venue that has already met them before being asked to do so. The commission should recognize that as exactly the kind of good faith conduct a CUP process is designed to encourage. Our fourth ground concerns the timing and pattern of this enforcement action. The county's now-retired code compliance director, Mr. Doug Leeper, testified before the Board of Supervisors in September 2025 that the existing ordinance was, and I'm quoting directly, difficult to and often impossible to enforce, with 40 to 50 venues operating without permits countywide and only one successful enforcement case in the prior year. Then on March 10th, 2026, just seven weeks before the initial interview was issued, the county held a public meeting presenting the agricultural and rural tourism project, a tiered replacement framework specifically designed to address those enforcement failures. The county was actively drafting a replacement framework while simultaneously enforcing the framework it had declared was broken. against the colony estate. Filing a CEP application under a framework of the county's own director had declared often impossible to enforce while a replacement was being actively drafted would have been procedurally irrational. California courts recognize equitable stoppel against government agencies in precisely these circumstances. The enforcement pattern here also raises serious concerns. This action was not initiated by county staff observing impacts. It was driven by a small number of organized complainants, including at least one individual located at least a half a mile away, coordinating opposition through a social media group. while we have seven direct neighbors who've all signed statements that the event on May 31st did not cause any disturbance at all. The commission should bear in mind that aggressive enforcement against well-managed rural event venues in this county have a track record. In Epona, LLC versus County of Ventura, the Ninth Circuit struck down the county's prior CUP scheme as unconstitutional prior restraint. The county rewrote its ordinance three times at significant public expense. The current regulatory landscape is again an active flux and history council's restraint. we respectfully request one of three forms of relief first and primarily vacate the nov in its entirety the use qualifies as an assembly use under existing nco nczo section 8105-4 and the owner's failure to hold the cup is a direct and reasonable consequence a good faith excuse me, good faith reliance on county guidance. Second, in the alternative, enter into a compliance agreement allowing continued operations under the protocols already in place, the AEA acoustic standards, the hard 10 pound sound cutoff and the offsite shuttle only parking requirement. with enforcement state pending completion of the zoning code update expected later this year. Third, direct the planning director to issue formal interpretation under NCZO section 8104-4.10 of the zoning ordinance confirming that the colony estates operations qualify as an assembly use, providing authoritative foundation for the CUP application, which we are prepared to file immediately after this hearing. Commissioners, the colony estate is not a problem venue seeking to avoid accountability. It is a professionally operated private estate that invested in acoustic engineering, structured logistics, licensed security, and offsite parking before being asked to do so. The law already provides a permitting pathway. The estate already meets the conditions. The owner acted in good faith on the county's own representations. The county's own reform process is underway. The appropriate outcome is not maximum daily penalties against the use the county is simultaneously working to legitimize. It is a compliance agreement, a stay of this enforcement action, and a clear path to an assembly-use CUP. One final important note to close on. The Colony Estate hosts elegant gatherings, primarily weddings, with stringent controls in place to ensure an ordinance-abiding event. The colony estate has been falsely characterized as a party house. We welcome you to visit any time to see for yourself that Mr. Tinsley and Ms. Ianova are professional operators with extraordinarily high standards to ensure their gatherings are first class affairs while also ensuring the gatherings are not disruptive to the neighborhood. At the conclusion of our presentation, we would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you have. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning, and I'll turn it over to our next speaker. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. I'm Jeff, and I'd like to bring up Marlon Hale, who was recommended to us by folks from the county. He's a professional acoustics engineer. He'll share with you more details about his background and the work he's done and his findings.

Thank you. My name is Marlon Hale. I've been doing wedding venue noise studies for several decades. Most of them are in vineyards, in orchards, and in properties that are surrounded by orchards. I was retained to do several noise studies for this property. one that had nothing to do with a wedding venue, but which was designed to answer specific questions regarding audibility and disturbance at distance properties surrounding the venue, which we did do by bringing the highest powered audio amplifiers that we have available with subwoofers to blast, literally blast the highest noise levels we could produce on site at the location where the DJs operate. We could not measure and could not hear the sounds at those distant venues. I believe you may have one report that addresses that. that test. As an acoustical professional engineer, I have no interest in taking sides in any case. We have tested both sides of multiple cases. We're interested in facts. We're interested in the truth. We're interested not in opinion, not in emotion, but the basic facts that we have been called upon to observe and measure. We have made sure that those events that we have monitored at Colonia State were well within the limits of the county and were well within our own perception of what is extraneous. The only thing that I do bring up is that sometimes we encounter what I would call too much happiness. The ladies seem to get really excited about these kind of events and it is a challenge to try and keep them from violating the noise code. But in so doing we have provided the professional expertise for the colony estates to maintain the county noise code totally. At all of the monitoring sites that we have established sound level meters, sometimes several sound level meters around the perimeter, across the street at the property line of the residences there. Our findings are in each of our reports. And if we found any issues, we have advised the property on how to deal with it. In the last event that I attended, I stood with the DJ and made sure even the frequency distribution, the low end frequency that travels the farthest, was not exceeding that which is required in our opinion, in our professional opinion, for that event. And the A-weighted sound levels were not allowed to exceed. And I was standing there watching our meters, which record audio. We have audio of everyone that we've ever maintained. It would be audio at the DJ station 10 feet away from their loudspeaker. I would then say that we approve and would encourage the continuation under proper guidance, under legally proper technical permission, and I do so. Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you.

I think we'll save the questions until after the presentation is complete.

Hello, members of the Commission. I'll reintroduce myself. My name is Jeffrey Tinsley. I'm the owner of the Colony Estate. Can you grab this one?

Actually, thank you, Marlon, by the way. We appreciate the time.

We've been working hard to make sure that We're following the guidance that had been given previously. Since we were just talking about sound, there's one key thing that I would love to share with everyone. What Marlon was discussing, by the way, our property is here in this chart. And I think this was provided in the documents, but I'm not sure.

This is our property here. This is where the sound typically is, right there.

The key complainants that people that have complained are in the red here. They're not even neighbors as far as I'm concerned. We've attempted to talk to all of them. They're the ones that have actually, some of them spoke today. These are the people that are riling up the neighborhood, creating fake We literally gave them a cease and desist yesterday. They're doing naughty things like creating a fake Instagram account, propagating lies, hate to everyone, and inciting others. The people in green here are our neighbors that we either have letters in place from or we've spoken with directly. They're our true neighbors that support us here.

So these three, Katie Teague, who's here, Martin workings, who's there, he's who's here as well.

and Stephen Capuano have conspired to come together. And some of what's gone on there is there are not just civil risks there. There are even potentially criminal risks, but that will be determined elsewhere. We are getting harassed. We are getting abused while we're trying to go down the path to do things the right way. And as Tom had mentioned, We've done this with guidance from folks that we spoke with from the Planning Commission and other members of the county. We're prepared to submit a CUP for assembly use and we meet all of the criterias we understand. To finish things, I'd love to share why we even do what we do. The property, as Tom had mentioned, is 15 times the size of the average property around, compared to the other properties in the area, 15 times. It's beautiful. We think that it's just the perfect space for a wedding. The Commission may not be aware, I think maybe you noted it, Tom, that 70% based on Doug Lieber's testimony, 70% of the wedding venues in Ventura County are actually currently unpermitted. We're hoping to be a model for all of the folks that are not currently permitted to use us as a model to follow the path and get more of those people to actually do it the right way. And we're doing this out of love. We love giving people a very special day. that warms their hearts in something, as someone said that had spoken before, something they're never going to forget, and do it with respect and care and consideration for our true neighbors, not the people that are harassing us. That's from me. And this is my partner, Lydia Ivanova. I'm nervous.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Lydia, and I have been trying to figure out what to say today, because honestly, how do you summarize your entire heart in just three minutes? How do you put years of sacrifice, dreams, and love into words? The truth is you can't, because the colony estate is not simply a venue to me. It's my home. It's my life. It's where Jeff and I wake up every morning. It is where we drink coffee together. It is where we dream about our future. When people leave at the end of the night, we don't. We are still here. We turn off the lights. We walk these grounds, and we look around at the tables that just held generations of one family gathered together. And we quietly say to each other, wow, that was beautiful. Because every single wedding means something to us. Every single one. Today I'm not standing here simply as a business owner or a wedding planner. I'm standing here as a person whose entire heart lives inside those gates. I personally plan many of the weddings that happen here. I hold mothers' hands when they cry. I calm fathers' moments before they walk their daughters down the aisle. I hug nervous brides when they are overwhelmed.

Thank you, Lidia. Your time is up.

I just want to say that I believe something beautiful needs to be permitted and it needs to be given a chance.

Do we have any questions of the appellant from the commissioners? I have a question in regards to the sound on the property. In regards to Marlin, the sound study gentleman, do you guys have any, is there any permanent monitoring of sound on the fences or anything like that that would have data to show the sounds?

We monitored several locations on the property. We had one monitor that was right 10 feet away from the DJ speaker, which we use as our control point. We had monitors to the north end, monitors to the south across the street at the property line of that location. We have had other monitors at distant locations on one occasion, as I said. So I'll answer any question specifically that you have about anything that we've reported or observed or anything about sound itself.

I was just wondering if you had any permanent sound, so if any noise ever happens during any party that it's recorded and documented and tracked or anything like that.

I'm going to have to read what you're saying. I can't hear every word.

I was asking if you had any permanent sound monitoring devices that are tracking data, historical, real-time around the venue.

During the events, we did. We have not posted permanent devices there. We've suggested the kind of devices that they could put on property at the DJ station. There is a particular device that when a setting is exceeded, it shuts the power off. And that's extreme, but it keeps people

ATTENTIVE.

SO HOW MANY EVENTS HAVE YOU MONITORED OVER THE LAST SINCE 2024? SINCE 2024? SINCE 2024 BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN IT SAYS THEY STARTED.

WE'VE BEEN THERE THREE TIMES. THREE TIMES? that we created ourselves. We had no, it was not a wedding. We brought in some very high powered sound generated equipment to test how far away that equipment could be heard and measured. And we went to three specific sites Some of them elevated with no line of sight blockage whatsoever to the venue. Others were in more lower residential areas and there was a line of sight disruption because they were down about the same elevation as the venue. In that special test, the venue, our special loud equipment could not be heard and could not be measured. And I still have and I always keep the audio recordings of every measurement we make.

But still you've measured three, you said three events.

at that property.

Right. That's what I'm talking about. At that property, you've only measured three, right? Okay. Thank you.

Am I correct? Yeah. Because we measure other locations as well. Yeah.

Commissioner Boyson?

Just to follow up, so not counting your staged event, how many actual events have you monitored at the site?

Not counting?

The staged one, yeah. Actual wedding.

Oh, actual weddings?

Yes.

Not just wedding events?

Well, yes.

Because many times we go to an event before...

I'm talking at this site, a wedding event.

How many of those have you done? I'm thinking wedding events, one, two, three, maybe four in the last several years, but we have... We do all kinds, not just weddings.

I'm speaking of this particular site.

Marlon, can you speak to why we did it in the first place to establish an understanding of at what levels we can't exceed to cause any disturbance and considering that's the reason we set the baseline?

Yes, we did. We've developed the sound levels that are at 10 feet from the DJ speakers or from a live speaker setup, live music, as what the noise limit has to be at that location so that at distant locations on the property line further out are always in compliance with the county code.

I will admit we had one bad event, and it just seems to be the case that I saw the video from that event a couple of times that was displayed. We learned a lot from that one event, and now we've developed more sound music and controls so that could never happen again, including the rights and the sound agreements.

And we were not monitoring that event, by the way. or we'd have put the kibosh on it. The last one we did monitor, we consistently told the mixer which frequencies needed to be dropped because low frequency travels much farther than high frequency does. The air itself mitigates high frequency, but low frequency Now, you can hear a Saturn rocket taking off from Cape Canaveral in New York City. You can measure the low frequency. You can't hear it. It's too low for us to hear, but you can feel it.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Any other further questions of the appellants from the commission? Seeing no further questions of the appellant, would code compliance like to present any closing remarks?

Chair Sandlin, at this point, I think we would open the public hearing and authorize public comment.

Secretary Luce, do we have any public comments or speakers on this item? And I'd like to state the public comments. As we discussed, anyone that has not spoken on the merits yet should speak.

Okay. We do have four. I mean, I think we have three that the one that went ahead and kind of like waived when I called them this morning. I do not know if they still wanted to speak. So those were Ryan Paul Tinsley, Somerset Ruiz, and then Chuck Cohen. So those were kind of like, you know, like the three in-persons that, you know, that waived their rights this morning.

You may come to the podium and speak.

Okay, go ahead, Ryan. You're first, and then next would be Somerset, and then Chuck.

My name is Ryan Tinsley. Jeffrey Tinsley is my father. I work at the Colony Estate as a paid member of the operations team. My role spans the entire event cycle. I prepare and set up the property before each event. I am on the ground throughout managing guests, security, and sound, and I handle cleanup and restoration afterward. I have been at every event start to finish, and I know exactly what happens here. Before every event, I help prepare and stage the property, make sure everything is clean, organized and ready to reflect the standards my father and Lydia have set. These events do not just happen, they're built carefully. My father and Lydia have poured themselves into this. Lydia in particular has brought much heart to what we do here and she has worked tirelessly to create a place where people come to create love, to get married, to mark the most important moments of their lives. That is what the colony state is and that is what is at stake today. I am asking you to give them the path forward they have earned.

Your time is up. Thank you. Next one is Somerset Ruiz. Are you going to be speaking?

Hello. I'm here as a mother of a vendor that has been supplying services and from experience we've seen how organized and how considerate and how much work and effort goes into making sure everything is run smoothly, cleanly and with consideration to everyone involved. I think the event is well organized compared to many other events and it offers a beautiful experience for everybody involved. I hope that it continues and I hope that the surrounding community can enjoy what is being brought to their neighborhood and see it as a gem, not as anything negative. Thank you.

Thank you. Chuck, go ahead please.

Good morning. I didn't realize this might end up being a father and son event, but I thought that my partner and son Tom covered the technical and legal matters in a very, very competent fashion. My point in dealing with this matter is really from a broader standpoint. I'm speaking in terms of property rights and in terms of reducing unnecessary and divisive regulatory approach to matters that are not directly involved with public safety. And so with that in mind, Tom and I have been working with Mr. Tinsley in trying to put this together in a respectful and considerate manner. Appreciate your consideration.

Thank you, Chuck. Chair Sandlin, besides that one, we also have new registered speakers in Zoom. Would you like me to call them? And then also, I would like to double check if you would like me to call the speakers that have already spoken a while ago when they thought that the meeting was for continuance.

Yes, the Zoom speakers and anyone who has not spoken on the merits yet should speak.

When you say merit, yes, that's the one who went ahead and says they did speak, spoke this morning, but they thought that it's because the item is for continuance. You would like to, would you like me to call them again later after those three Zoom speakers?

Yeah, anybody that did not speak on the merits, I believe we talked about the, they spoke about the continuation that they should have the opportunity to speak.

Okay. All right, I'll go ahead and kind of like do that one. All right, so for the Zoom speakers, the one that registered was Sam Heredia, followed by William Clay Velarde, and then Heather Canada. Sam, go ahead. OK, so it seems like Sam is not there yet. Let me go ahead and call the next one, which is William Clay Villarda. All right, William's not there yet. How about Eder Canada?

Yes, I'm here. OK, go ahead.

Is that Eder?

Yes, can I be heard clearly?

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, hi, I booked our wedding at the colony of states for August 14th, 2026. We signed our venue agreement on August 10th, 2025. The total cost for a Friday wedding. Was 12,500 dollars and we paid a deposit of 62. 50. About 3 months before our wedding day, we learned from Sergeant Miller that the calling is state had a county violation record related to operating as an permitted commercial event venue. This issue was never disclosed to us before we signed the agreement or paid our deposit. We have also to recorded conversations with Lydia and Jeffrey, where we repeatedly asked whether there were any issues that could affect our wedding. They continue to tell us there was no issues. We gave them multiple opportunities to be up front with us, but the compliance issue was not disclosed until we confronted with them. But with what we had found on public records, and what sergeant Miller had told us. This is a noise safety traffic and a consumer protection issue as well. Couples are being asked. Thank you, Heather.

Your time is up.

Hi. I want to say one more thing before I'm muted. Why were we given a contract when this violation was already in place? They continue to repeat this pattern. I mean, that's something where it's not about noise. It's about the violation and continuing these weddings. I think that's where we have to focus on. That is all. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Heather. Next one is Maria Nateria. Go ahead, Maria.

Hi, good morning. I'm a wedding and event florist. I have worked at this venue multiple occasions, and as an independent vendor providing floral services for weddings, I've seen that there's a lot of organization behind it. We are given like one week before each event like a logistics plans where we have to park on site the venue. Everything is very organized with other vendors. I've never seen like other vendors parking outside or blocking the entrance. also i appreciate as a florist we do setups in the morning but also this is one of the few venues where we actually can come in earlier like 9 30 to pick up and that means that the flores and the caters are usually the last uh vendors at the venue picking up. And it's easier for us because there are no guests, so we can clear the tables easily and pick out all our inventory.

Thank you, Maria. Your time is up. Thank you. Next one is Edward B. Go ahead, Edward. Hello. Can I be heard? Yes, we can hear you.

Oh, okay. I don't know why I came up as Edward B., but my name is Michelle, and I recently got married at the Colony Estate. I will say it is not perfect, and when we came in, our biggest fear were the neighbors. However, when my fiance and I toured the venue, we absolutely fell in love with it. Jeff and Lydia are absolutely wonderful to work with. As a bride that was very nervous to get married there, I will say music was turned off by 8 p.m. All of our guests were required to shuttle by from a nearby hotel that was more than happy to work with us. So all of the concerns that the neighbors have are being handled and they are being respected. Also, I've seen all the bullying online. I've seen the neighbors say that they're gonna call the cops even if there is no sound. The cops came to our wedding and we were so quiet. We had our DJ sign the sound agreement. And everything went perfectly. So I will say, give them the opportunity to continue, especially with all the other brides that are hoping to have their weddings there.

Okay, Chair Sundin, those were the Zoom speakers online. Now I will go ahead and call up all the speakers that already spoken this morning. And if you would like to decide whether you want them to speak again in the, you know, like, will that be okay? Okay, so Martin Warkin. followed by Dan Gessler, and then Teresa Olmos.

Chair. Yes. I was under the impression that people that already spoke on the issue would not be speaking again, that only those people that did not speak on the issue would be chosen. We're starting over again.

Probably.

Mr. Chair, may I just suggest, rather than having Luz make that determination, I think it would be appropriate to make sure that all the people that wish to speak on the item have the opportunity to do so. And then the chair can decide if they've already spoken to the merits of the case before them, or they just talked about the continuance. So I think it's just, it's a challenging position for the secretary to do. I would prefer to call the entire speaker list and let the chair say, oh, thank you very much. You've already spoken on the merits of the case before. If that makes sense.

Sounds good. If you've spoken on the merits of the case before, and let me just clarify suggestions from Director Mullen. If you've spoken on the merits before, we'd ask that you do not speak on the merits again. If you spoke on the continuation, we'd ask that you would then speak on the merits if you'd like to at this time. I think that's what Commissioner Boydston is suggesting and Director Mulley.

Right. And again, I apologize for the interruption. I just want to allow everybody that wants to speak on the matter to speak. So even the speakers may not know, hey, did I speak on the merits of the case or were I talking about the continuance? I think it would be appropriate for the chair to say, when you see the person coming up, you're familiar with the face, you say, oh, it looks like you've already spoke on the merits of the case. Could we move on to the next speaker?

Yeah, and I ask the public in good faith, when you do come up, if you spoke on the continuance or if you were speaking on the continuance, please come up and speak on the merits. If you spoke on the merits, please do not come up for the sake of time and repeating information.

Thank you. Yeah, I realize it's a little bit challenging for everybody here, but thank you.

All right, so I will go ahead and kind of like call them again.

You can call and wave whether you have spoken on the merits or spoken on the continuation, and we ask that in good faith you be honest.

All right, so go ahead. I mean, I'll go ahead and kind of like do that now. Martin Workin?

I spoke on the merits.

Okay. Dan Kessler?

I spoke on merits.

Okay. Teresa Olmos?

There is one thing that I would like you all to know. I don't know if it's in merits or not. Excuse me if it's not. You can just... But I do want to say that my mailbox has been blocked several times and the mail carrier does not leave my mail in there because I live only 100 feet from there. I live right in front. And the worst part of all is that my private lawn has been littered with discarded beer cans and trash. And we never used to have that in our neighborhood. And me here, as the homeowner, my husband and I really need our quiet around there. And I am asking all of you, Board of Supervisors, to just please listen to our voice. We are not simply asking the county to enforce the residential zoning and noise codes that are already, we are asking you to please enforce them. Thank you.

Please ask if you did speak about the merits to be truly honest if you did speak about the merits and like we asked for in good faith.

OK, this one, Jacqueline Carrillo. Would you like to speak? Because I know that you wait to speak this morning.

Go ahead. Hi, my name is Jacqueline Carrillo and I am here today to say that yes, our county does need to revise the outdoor event ordinance because it's very confusing. It's very confusing for those of us who have a CUP and it's causing a lot of conflict in a neighborhood. that is not designed for this type of event to be hosted. Things that are very important that are considered for CUPs being compatible with neighboring properties and neighboring land uses. Also lots of considerations about safety for the public. Traffic, parking noise, we've heard about all of those. We've also heard some clients speak as to the integrity of our industry.

so making sure that they can host weddings in a place that's safe for them and their families thank you all right next is steve capuano or capuno i spoke to the compliance to the continuous to the to the continuance okay please proceed thank you i will address marlon's sound study in regards to the fact that he referred to our location indirectly as having no detectable noise. And I will openly dispute that. I have five recordings that we made in our backyard of audible music that are in direct directly contrary to Marlon's sound study. I don't know where he was set up on our property. He says he came to our property. I anticipate the fact that he probably was at the bottom of our property, which is within like a sound barrier in a cul-de-sac, would explain maybe why he did not detect any sound. But if you come up to our elevated backyard, we have a house that's on a small hill. The yard is...

Thank you, Steve. Your time is up.

Thank you.

Next is Juliana Martinez. Okay, next is Jen O'Neill.

Hi. I spoke to the merits, but I wanted to further elaborate on the values of homes as a realtor and how this can affect our neighborhood with the current colony estate. This is a form that has to be filled out by sellers. When you sell a house.

We appreciate that. You presented those forms. If you'd like to leave those forms up here with us.

Yes, absolutely. There's four questions that could negatively affect homes in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

right next one is karen o'neill okay katie tig i'd like to speak on the sound study um the uh i did not speak on the sound study specifically it had the wrong db i'm in the music industry i've been president of my company for

We appreciate your comments. This has to do with the merits.

It should have started at 95 to 105. I'm sorry, ma'am. The festivals are logarithmic. Excuse me, ma'am.

Thank you, Katie.

Appreciate your comments.

All right. Next is Jennifer Marabilia.

Jennifer?

My venues in Santa Rosa Valley, I consider the entire valley my community. They're all my neighbors.

Yes, I believe that she did request the continuance. So if you want to give, we'll give you another 15 seconds to continue to speak.

Okay. I think that's the problem. I think that sound, we have ears. We don't need fancy equipment. and sound effects in all different ways and carries in all different ways. And so not respecting your neighbors, it's a problem.

Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you for your comments. Next one is, okay, Ryan, already done. Chair Sandlin, those were the names that I have over here. So those were all the speakers that spoke today.

Okay, great.

If I may, Chair Sandlin, there's also one statement card that I received this morning, just a statement card from Wayne and Peggy Kropp, and they just went ahead and kind of wanted to let you know that they oppose this item 6A.

Would the applicant like to present any rebuttal? Yes.

Considering that several of the people that claim to be neighbors, once again that's been a key kind of theme. I want to give you a sense. I don't want to beat people up too badly. But a key thing is understanding who these people are that again, as I shared, do not live anywhere near us. Stephen Capuano, again, is here. Katie Teague, who just spoke, is right here. These are our actual neighbors.

We're right here.

Excuse me. Please let the appellant speak. I'll reset his time to be able to speak.

I'll remind you that these people... Secretary Luce, please reset his time. Those that are close, thank you. The people that are close here have signed letters, which we've submitted. We have eight or nine, and then acknowledgements that... They're not being affected and supportive of what we do. There are many, many more than that. Some of the folks that are actually causing an issue across social media with the fake accounts, et cetera, are those ones that are on that list that were marked. Spreading rumors about the property being used to film pornography, for instance. Bragging, one lady, she actually just spoke, brags about killing squirrels. I know this sounds crazy.

For the record, would you please just try and speak into the microphone better? Thank you. I apologize.

Martin was getting mad at the gardeners for working in the winter. Martin compared the zoning dispute to Venezuela's social collapse. Anyway, we've been harassed by people that aren't even neighbors. The sound studies were done for the purpose of making sure that we were not going to affect the neighborhood and do things the right way, including doing the measurements straight to their places, the people that are far away. That's all I will say about that. I'd love to give Tom an opportunity to finish things up. But thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners Tom Cohen here on behalf of the appellant. I just want to summarize for you that the three forms of relief here that we're seeking. One is vacate the amended NOV in its entirety. This use qualifies as an assembly use under the existing zoning ordinance. uh we have a cup application ready to be filed immediately second we are prepared to enter into a negotiated compliance agreement uh with the county um tool while also allowing the operations to continue with the protocols that a cup would be required to comply with already in place and third If there's any question as to whether this is an assembly use or not, we would ask that the county evaluate and provide a formal interpretation to the commission at a future time that this, in fact, use does qualify as an assembly use. So we would ask that any action on this be stayed while you consider these three alternative forms of relief. And that'll wrap, that's a wrap.

Thank you, sir. Any questions of the commission, of the appellant?

Yes. Could you expand a little bit on your knowledge and conversations that this is actually a use that is permitted under assembly? Sure. In the zone? Yep. Yep.

So let me go back to my notes so that I can be accurate in what I tell you.

And then follow up, have you had this conversation with not only code enforcement but with the planning division?

Well, I'll start with that question. Commissioner Boydston the yeah, we have had conversation with staff And that assembly use was a pathway available to us the There are a number of conditions obviously that come with that that relate to operations, but also relating to Facility Upgrades it would need to happen. Those are those are There's a there's a few items that would need to be done to accommodate that. But as it relates to qualifying, as I described earlier, the zoning ordinance defines assembly uses as a building or a structure where groups voluntarily meet to pursue common social, educational and other interests. um invited guests gather in permanent buildings or structures for private social occasions we described that the uh the property itself with eight foot perimeter walls 17 foot gates etc qualifies as a as a structure is defined as i defined a minute ago so that the when folks do gather they're within the walls of a structure they're not outside of one in addition you know there are uh there's there's a 3 000 square foot third floor room where the gatherings occur on at almost every event we have three separate buildings where brides and grooms can get ready and prepared. There's rooms where they can have, where they gather for social discussion and drinks, what have you. So, you know, we fit the framework of what assembly use would otherwise, what it would require. And we think, we agree with county staff that this is the appropriate pathway to getting a CUP in place.

Commissioner Boyce. So just to follow up, your definition of structure being a walled compound is a little bit, I think, of a stretch. Structures are generally in the building code define walls, but I'm not sure structures are defined in from a planning sense as a walled compound. Structures typically are buildings with walls and roofs and windows and doors.

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. However, the county's definition of a structure are walls over seven feet in height. And there's nothing in the code that talks about roofed structures, anything of that nature that would limit the ability to do what we're talking about. Well, roofed roof structures, yes, it's allowed,

So I see a lot of, you know, in some of the videos, a lot of the the happenings are actually not in the buildings themselves, but are in the areas around the buildings. So that again, a question on on definition of assembly as a permitted use i think your argument might be stronger if it was only held in buildings indoors as opposed to the grounds around the buildings i i thank you for for your explanation my my view is

that the code is very clear as to what a structure is in the assembly use definition. It's also very clear that a structure doesn't say building and structure, it says building or structure. Structure is defined in your code as walls over, one segment of it is walls over seven feet. We have that. And then the video clips that you saw, are minutes of excerpts from a long evening. I think you heard on the tape from a woman who works for the colony estate who said, we're moving the event now inside the building. That wasn't specifically as a result of the call for service to the police department. That's just part of how these events operate. And Lydia and Tim, Jeff can speak to that more. particularly than I can.

Any other questions? I have a question in regards to the assembly use and your third, I believe it's your third ask on there. In regards to assembly use, and maybe this is a question for staff actually, IN REGARDS TO THE WALLS AND THE ASSEMBLY USE, WOULD ALL THE COMPONENTS OF THE UPGRADES Are the upgrades in place currently right now that would qualify as assembly use which would then negate the violation or are there things that were not in place which would not negate the violation? I think that's either, that's a question for the appellant's attorney and a question for staff second to rebut.

Sure, we believe that the definition, that the property currently meets the definition of assembly use. Pardon? I hear you. It currently does. It has. We have the eight-foot walls that surround the property. And the purpose, the description of what assembly use is, we're also doing. It's a place of gathering, social and other kinds of events like that. So we currently meet the definition of what assembly use is. as for the other upgrades that are that will likely be necessary relate to you know connecting to sewer as an example do we have ada is the property properly ada accessible those kinds of things need to be

worked out with county staff as to you know what what that exactly means but in terms of the use itself it meets the definition of assembly use now and would that require i guess is then questions for staff would that require cup to have that assembly use and then those at cup in place or or will it be in place or how to i mean that's those are really i think staff questions at this point

And just my two cents is yes, a CUP would be required and we're prepared to submit that either later today or tomorrow morning.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. WOULD CODE COMPLIANCE STAFF LIKE TO PRESENT ANY CLOSING REMARKS OR ALSO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS OF COMMISSION?

YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR SANDLIN. I'LL START BY RESPONDING TO YOUR LAST QUESTION RELATING TO ASSEMBLY USE. And so on behalf of county staff, it's my understanding that the county has never interpreted the assembly use to encompass a use such as the use that the appellants have initiated without any permit approvals or in compliance with the county zoning ordinance. and also that issue is not before your commission today there is a process in the non-coastal zoning ordinance for where there is a use that a property owner if a property owner does not identify the use as being identified in the use matrix they can request that the planning director make a determination as to whether their proposed use is equivalent to a use identified in our use matrices. And so that process has not happened. And so that issue is not before your commission today. Today the issue before you is limited to whether the appellant initiated a use in violation of our non-coastal zoning ordinance. And if your commission finds that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that they did do that on the date that the NOV issued, then your commission should uphold the NOV and deny the appeal and take the other recommended actions in the staff report. THIS, YOUR COMMISSION IS HERE AND IT'S REVIEWING, YOU KNOW, AS THE REVIEWING BODY AND IT'S APPELLATE AUTHORITY. NOT, AS I MENTIONED, THE EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATION IS MADE AT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR LEVEL AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND SO THAT'S NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY. WE DO HAVE planning manager Mr. Winston Wright here today if you have questions regarding communications that planning the planning division staff may have had with the appellant but we're also available to to address any other questions you have as relates to that issue.

Mr. Winston? I guess I I understand your viewpoint. I guess what I'm grappling with is the violation is based off of the use being defined as an outdoor event. And if, in fact, the use is defined as an assembly, then the violation itself is sort of null and void because it's not addressing what's actually happening out there. So that's where I see, that's where I have the distinction. I'm talking about the violation not whether it's a great use or a, you know, I'm talking about the violation specifically and the violation I believe says it's in violation only insofar as it's allowing outdoor events to happen on the property.

I can speak to that, Commissioner. With respect, violation alleges that a use is taking place which has not been permitted properly under the requirements of the NCCO. Whether or not it's classified as an outdoor event use or an accessory use, the notice of violation is still correct. Outdoor event uses are categorically not permitted in the RE zone. accessory uses are permitted with a conditional use permit which the appellant was informed of the need for several times if they wished to be classified as an assembly use as well as potentially other changes that might be needed to be made to the property both operationally and physically but no CUP was made was applied for and no CUP has been issued prior to this time or at this time the appellant has said they are prepared to issue one um in fact demonstrating that no cup as would be required for an accessory use um has been has been applied for an issue the the nov would still be valid uh were it for any other use just that you know a cup was uh required and was not obtained in fact many of the uh difficulties that uh we've had today about you know the operational characteristics of the premises. I think the reason we're getting into that with a lot of these public comments is that those things are precisely the type of issues which are supposed to be ventilated through the CUP process. And the lack of a CUP is precisely why this commission is being confronted with these issues in a forum which is not conducive to it.

So just to follow up. So it has more to do that the use, whatever it is, isn't in the matrix for this piece of property.

It's that the use there has been no determination of even really what the use is. And in code enforcement's view, our opinion as to what it is, which could have been ventilated through the equivalency determination process with the director, we having not having the appellant not having gone through that. we're left to make the determination on our own it looks to us like an outside uh event use and uh that's not permitted even but even assuming arguendo that they're right and it is an accessory use they still haven't obtained the proper permit so either way they are in violation of the nczo thank you staff have any more remarks or would the planning manager

OR STAFF HAVE ANY CLOSER REMARKS?

YES, SIR, CHAIR SANDLIN AND COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THERE WAS AN OPTION FOR THE COUNTY TO ENTER INTO A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THAT THE APPEALENT SUGGESTED THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COLONY STATES TO CONTINUE HOSTING COMMERCIAL EVENTS UNDER ITS EXISTING OPERATIONAL PROTOCOLS AND ENFORCEMENT with enforcement of the amended notice and order stayed. A compliance agreement would not be appropriate if it required the county to allow or authorize the continued operation of a commercial event on the property while those activities remain in violation of the NCZO. A compliance agreement is intended to establish a path forward correcting violations and achieving compliance. It is not intended to function as a mechanism to authorize the continued operation of an unauthorized use. Before your commission is not the issue of whether a compliance agreement should be entered into or not. The Commission's role is to determine whether the violations identified in the minute notice of violation existed at the time the notice was issued.

Commissioner Boydston.

Just a question for you. So if the violation holds, right, what happens?

If the violation is upheld, further enforcement would no longer be stayed.

AND WHAT DOES THAT ENTAIL?

THAT COULD ENTAIL A WHOLE HOST OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INCLUDING CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THE VIOLATION, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CLEAR THIS VIOLATION?

The proper and simplest way to cure the violation is to cease the use until such time as the appropriate permits have been applied for and obtained to clarify what the use category is and that the use category is both allowed and appropriate at the premises.

So let me just try to understand from the appellant's perspective what they would have to do now. So the the, they cease events, they cease operations. What is that timeframe? Let's say they cease today, when would they be able to submit an application?

Submit a CUP application. They would also need to request an equivalency determination to allow us to evaluate if some or all of the activities that are associated with the assembly use would be allowed to continue, some of the commercial event activities. That's a determination that would need to be made by the planning director. The process for a CUP depends largely on whether there's environmental issue areas that need to be addressed through CEQA. That can extend that out to more than a year. If there's not, if this is something that could be done through a CEQA exemption, it's something that we could probably get through the process in a matter of six months or so assuming that the applicant is very diligent in being responsive to any comments or needs for additional information we have. A lot of that timeline is out of our control. It is incumbent on applicants to be timely in their responses. And then I wanted to allow I wanted to address a couple of things. Jonathan did have a conversation with the building official on this concept of the wall around the property makes it a structure. And that is not the building officials determination at all, nor is it anything that our planning staff would support. So when we see chairs out on the lawn, when we hear And we see people, as Commissioner Boydson noted, moving around the outdoor areas. That is an outdoor event. And that's one of the reasons that was one of the violations. But again, that's not the only violation. The main violation is that they are conducting activities without the benefit of any planning permits to allow those activities, nor the necessary building permits and upgrades that would normally be required for public health and safety. I do also have Winston Wright, our planning manager here, because there have been comments made by the appellant's counsel about information that was provided to him regarding the permissibility of an indoor assembly use. And I can tell you that those comments were heavily caveated in the conversations that Mr. Wright had with the appellant, and Mr. Wright's here to address that in more detail.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. My name is Winston Wright, Chairman Sandlin, members of the Planning Commission. I had my my position at the county previously was a permanent administration manager and I helped property owners upfront approve apply for discretionary permits, including preparing for them. Mr. Tinsley approached me about approximately a year and a half ago personally and asked me about the types of entitlements that would be appropriate for his property in order to use it as he's currently using it. We went through the use matrix and the ordinance and identified the uses that are allowed in the rural exclusive zone. And the two uses that were highlighted were assembly uses and bed and breakfast, which were allowed. Outdoor events are not allowed. And I explained that you would have to clarify to the decision maker how you qualified for an assembly use to meet that category of land use. And generally, those are indoor uses. So I highly emphasized the permitting requirements that would be appropriate for an assembly use. in order to convert a single family dwelling to do so in the setting that it was in. My job was specifically to know a little bit about every agency's requirements, including building and safety, the fire department and environmental health. I named those three because this particular project and this property owner has advised very clearly and distinctly on three separate occasions. First with him, then with another land use consultant by the name of Jane Farkas, and then again with the Cohen land use attorneys. On each occasion I very clearly identified the use of assembly and identified that outdoor uses at assembly type use approved ones are accessory to those principal use of being an indoor. And I even brought up scenarios where assembly was utilized in the past, including the Sons of Anarchy request to create a club in Miners Oaks and other situations where they would have accessory outdoor uses. And I explained that those outdoor uses would be under the umbrella of the entitlement as required by the ordinance. So when you propose a principal use, such as an assembly use, first you have to qualify for that use. You have to convince the decision makers it qualifies for that use. And staff does not have the authority to negate their application or avoid or not take in their application. I was requested on several occasions, both by board members and agency directors to provide an opportunity to move forward in the entitlement pass. Like I said, there was several caveats, including providing a case by case situation situational that they needed to address, one of which is that they're in the city's sphere of influence in Camarillo, and according to our guidelines of orderly development and our ordinance, they'd have to go to the city and talk to them about their use and ask the city if the city would like to entertain the entitlement instead of the county, and annex the property. I highlighted that because as an assembly use, several occupancy requirements are required including septic systems to be appropriately designed to accept the type of waste and materials that are being brought in. As they were describing their use, if it were to be indoors, it would require a commercial type of permit that would be issued by the state of California. More than likely, if they were going to do that, given the location of the sewer line, they would have to work with the community service district to bring the sewer line to the property because a large assembly use on a residential septic system could be overcome with the amount of wastewater going into it. A conditional use permit for outdoor events would not allow them to use those facilities unless they were to demonstrate to environmental health and the fire department. It was also explained to them that because of the location in their request, it would have to be approved by decision makers that would take input with the neighbors. And if they continue to operate, it was going to be divisive and difficult to acquire the permit. I also explained that to use the building as an occupancy under assembly, it would require significant upgrades related to fire sprinklings, the availability of fire hydrants, and the like. In addition to that, I explained that the process would need to go through the formal process before they could operate, which would be a discretionary hearing before your body

Any questions of staff? Just a question in the weeds.

Do you define indoors? Can you assemble indoors in a temporary tent?

No, sir. It would be a building or a structure that would be permanent in nature.

Thank you. Once if the appellant ceases operations today, when would they be allowed to submit any application to you or the city of Camarillo at that point that you would accept the application?

The application would require them to get a form provided by the county from the city, recognizing that the project is within the city's sphere of influence. It would also require a complete application to be submitted with signatures and fees, along with the appropriate types of studies and design. Most importantly, it would have a project scope in which the planning director could interpret whether or not the outdoor or assembly was the appropriate type of use. And I explained to the property owner on multiple occasions that that scope of work was the most important point to move the conversation forward in order for the planning director to determine whether or not it was an appropriate assembly type of use.

And so the timing on that would be once he gets all the paperwork together?

It is difficult for staff to say how long it would take if the project was deemed complete and it was deemed appropriate to take to hearing for approval. As the agency director suggested, it had the potential to go forward and be heard within about six to seven months if all things were lined up appropriately and we had cooperation with the property owner with the type of documents that we needed. Alternatively, it could go straight to recommendation for denial, and it could be very quickly.

A question from Commissioner Woodson.

Well, just so we heard from the property owner's attorney that, you know, the assembly use is all ready to go and we're we're all, you know, it's happening now. It's able to happen. I'm hearing from you. That's really not quite the case because, as you point out, and When you have an assembly use, there are certain occupancy from a building code standpoint that needs to be met. Infrastructure being one which you pointed out, fire sprinklers being another. So it really is. Even if you took the took the the notion that it's already an assembly use and they should just be able to go ahead, that's not really the case. There are a lot more factors to come into play to make it a viable assembly use out of a single family residence or a state.

Commissioner Boydston, I want to ask staff, I want to confirm that that is correct and that I speak to fundamental requirements of other agencies and I directed as the agency director and the CEO's office request the applicant to the appropriate authorities in the fire department and environmental health in the city of Camarillo. So I referred them specifically to those agencies to speak and to get the appropriate advice. Like I said, yes, you're responding to your answers. Absolutely. From my experience, the site is not capable of accommodating an assembly use without significant investment in safety factors. aside from the land use.

Any other questions of staff? I will now close the public hearing. Any discussion or motion from the commissioners?

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD A RECOMMENDATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT TO DENY THE APPEAL.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER CUSHING AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER KESLEY. SECRETARY LOOSE, PLEASE TAKE THE CALL.

COULD I MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE?

YES, COMMISSIONER BOYSTON HAS A COMMENT.

I just think this is one of those no-win situations because obviously the business that you guys are doing and what you give out to people is something precious and valuable and worthwhile. I only wish that somehow this didn't come to a violation but it started a year back in the right direction and wasn't wasn't gonna financially impact you that this violation is going to. I just hope that you will weather the storm and do the right things so that your business can thrive. And I hope to see it back here so that we can help you make it work. Can I respond to that?

CHAIR, THIS IS TIFFANY NORTH COUNTY COUNCIL. CAN I JUST CLARIFY THE MOTION, IF I MAY? THE MOTION AS LAID OUT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION AS LAID OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE STAFF REPORT AND ALL THE EXHIBITS, CONSIDERED ALL COMMENTS, EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, UPHOLD THE CODE COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION, deny the appellant's appeal of the determination and deny any refund of the appellant's appeal fees. Is that the motion?

Yes.

Thank you.

I'd like to make a comment too as well and I concur with Commissioner Boyd's and I wish it didn't come to this point where we're here and hopefully that this could work out for all parties and benefits and everything that we can. We've got a motion already in a second which is pretty much a with the four people here a passing situation and so I think as I hope it works out for all parties involved and and you guys can weather the storm and get through the process and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Okay. Commissioner Boydston?

Yes.

Commissioner Kessley? Yes. Vice Chair Cushing?

Yes.

Chair Sandlin?

Yes. Motion passes with four yes votes. The next item is 6B. We're going to take a break. This has been a while here in the making. Take a 10 minute break. All right, the Planning Commission is back in session. The next item is item 6B, case number PL22-0079. The applicant is Kipp Atwater, I believe. Yes. And the project description is the applicant request of variance to authorize encroachment into the required setbacks for an attached garage and in addition to an existing single family dwelling. The garage in addition would be a setback of 7.5 feet from the property line where a minimum setback of 20 feet is ordinarily required. and eight inches from the side property line where a minimum setback of five feet is required. The two-car garage will be a total of 402 square feet with a second floor residential addition of the same size. The project location is 7973 Santa Ana Road in the unincorporated area of Ventura County. At this time I'd like to ask each of the Planning Commissioners to share 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 PL22-0079 that is not already contained in the record before us on this matter. Please disclose the substance of the information only if that information is not contained in the record before us on this matter. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Commissioner Boydston.

No disclosures.

Commissioner Kessley. I have no disclosures. Vice Chair Cushing.

No disclosures.

Chair Sandlin.

No disclosures. Case Planner Michael Conger, please proceed with your presentation.

Good morning, Chair Sandlin and members of the Commission. My name is Michael Conger, representing the Resource Management Agency's Planning Division. The item before you is a request for a variance and it's case number PL250079. FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO PARTICIPATE ON ZOOM, YOU MAY REGISTER AT THE LINK PROVIDED ON YOUR SCREEN. IF YOU'RE LOGGED INTO ZOOM, YOU CAN PRESS THE RAISE HAND BUTTON TO INDICATE YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING BY TELEPHONE ON ZOOM, YOU CAN DIAL STAR THEN 9 TO BE CUED TO SPEAK. THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6B. I'll start off by orienting you to the project site. The site is located on the west side of Santa Ana Road, approximately one quarter mile north of Casitas Vista Road, off of the Casitas Vista off ramp on Highway 33, approximately four and a half miles north of the city of Ventura. The project site is addressed at 7973 Santa Ana Road. The parcel is designated very low density residential. It's a 5,000 square foot parcel. And in the Ojai Valley area plan, it's designated urban residential with a one to two dwelling unit per acre density. The zoning is rural exclusive with a 20,000 square foot minimum parcel size. And the parcel is also in two overlay zones, the temporary rental unit restriction overlay zone and the dark sky overlay zone. This is a bird's eye view of the project site to see it in context. And one of the things I'd like to point out here is the steepness of the terrain and the density of the oak woodlands that are in the surrounding area. And this is a closer view, zoomed in on the project site. Again, because of the topography and the oak woodlands, it is fairly common in this area to have reduced front and side setbacks. For a little bit of project history, this site is part of the Foster Park tract, which was originally subdivided in 1925. The assessment records indicate that a structure was built on this property in 1926. And then the only permitting records we have are a 1996 residential addition. Additionally, in 2025, the garage that was previously on the property was demolished. The proposal today is a variance request to reduce the front setback from 20 feet down to seven and a half feet, and the side setback from five feet down to eight inches. This is to accommodate proposed development, which includes a garage of 402 square feet, that's a two-car garage, and above it would be a residential addition also of 402 square feet, which includes a bedroom and a bathroom. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a 20 square foot balcony expansion. This is the site plan. And on the right, I've highlighted the pre-existing development, the house, the balcony, and the garage. The garage had since been demolished, and now the proposed development is going roughly in this location here. These are the elevations for the proposed addition. The front of the property is shown on the left, and the two sides are shown on the right. These are some site photos of the project site with the overall house shown on the left. On the right we have a zoomed in photo showing where the garage location would go. And I do want to point out that the green structure is on a different property. Here are some of the basic zoning standards that we reviewed the project for consistency with that are in the non-coastal zoning ordinance. The project complies with all NCZO standards with the exception of the minimum front yard and side yard setbacks which are the subject of the variance request before your commission today. The staff report includes a detailed discussion on findings that the commission must adopt in order to grant a variance. There are four required findings and to summarize those are that the applicant must show that there are special circumstances affecting the property such as topography and vegetation. and lot size. The variance can't grant the applicant any special privileges that other similarly situated properties benefit from. The applicant must show that compliance with the ordinance poses an unnecessary hardship. And the applicant must also show that the project would not cause any public health, safety, or welfare concerns. Let me go back. the applicant does have the burden of demonstrating that these findings are met and the applicant has provided written findings which staff has responded to in exhibit six of the staff report packet and staff is recommending that your commission adopt these findings And to summarize the rationale for adopting the findings, the applicant seeking the variance as it would allow construction of a two car garage, which would bring the site into conformity with off street parking requirements. As you may be aware, residences require two covered parking spaces. And at present, there are no off street parking spaces on the property. options for locating a garage and residential addition on this property are relatively limited because of the topography and the vegetation. And so development needs to occur towards the front of the property rather than towards the rear. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED GARAGE WOULD MEET OR EXCEED THE SETBACKS OF THE ORIGINAL GARAGE THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY. AND FINALLY, BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE FOSTER PARK SUBDIVISION AND THE TOPOGRAPHIC AND VEGETATION CONSTRAINTS, IT IS FAIRLY COMMON IN THE AREA TO HAVE REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY SETBACKS. FOR THESE REASONS, THE PLANNING DIVISION BELIEVES THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. This project was reviewed for consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act and planning staff recommends that your commission find that the project is exempt under a class three exemption for new small structures. Based on the analysis contained in the staff report, the planning division recommends that your commission make the required findings to grant the proposed variance and grant the variance subject to the conditions of approval. Once again, I'd like to remind anyone participating on Zoom that you can indicate your interest to speak on this item by pressing the raise hand button or if you're participating by phone dialing star nine. This is on agenda item number six B, the Atwater variants. This concludes staff's presentation. I am available for any questions. The applicant, Kip Atwater, is also here and has a presentation to provide as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Michael. We have a question from Commissioner Boydston.

So the side yard setback of eight inches on the adjacent property, there's a building sitting right on the property line right now, right? That's correct. So how do you build eight inches away and have enough room to sheet the outside in any sort of finish on a new wall? You physically can't get in there.

I would refer to the applicant on that particular question. That would be it. Are there any other questions for me?

Hello. I think I have a presentation. This went a little longer. My wife had to leave and Oscar, who's my architect, had to leave. They had to go to work. I started this process not knowing how this works. I started with a geo report because I was told I needed one. That took me about a year and $15,000 to find a company willing. A lot of them wouldn't take the liability of doing the soil report on the really steep thing, but they said it was solid bedrock. That was fine. Then I got Oscar, my designer, to come and a civil engineer and a structural engineer to come out to make sure it might be possible before I I continued this process. As you can see, my house is attached to the neighbor or it was in the 70s. The old neighbor told me he went out on an oil rig and came back and his neighbor had built a house attached to his. It was literally just drywall insulation and then the neighbor's house. There's no wall in between. The neighbor would smoke cigarettes and the cigarette smoke would come through. It was completely full of mold. So after I got all those things, I got a demo permit, but I got the wrong demolition permit and I tore it down and then I couldn't be grandfathered in because I got the wrong permit. So that's kind of where where I got. Doing these are pictures from the seventies that the neighbor gave me. You can see that back then the houses were attached. So I'm trying to improve the setback that existed by making it safer and not be attached. My architect said we could build a like a solid rock wall for fire. And that would be able to do that he had a contractor come out to make sure a lot of this was possible. The downside of of this, that's our proposal. I don't know how to go backwards. Sit down.

Put the small button below.

OK. Sorry. I'm trying to go quick also, because I know you guys have been here for a while. All right. Is that when they built that, it stopped the water flow? So three months after buying the house, I was so excited. I finally bought a house. I'm a public school teacher. It took me a long time to save to do that. And the first rain, three months after moving in, the whole downstairs flooded. And then the paint peeled off the walls. There's mold everywhere. The people who sold it to me said, oh, we didn't know anything about that. I SPENT EIGHT GRAND IN LEGAL FEES. I GOT FIVE GRAND BACK. BUT WHATEVER. SO I GOT A LITTLE BIT BACK. SO THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL. I WANTED TO KEEP THAT ORIGINAL LOOK OF THE HOUSE. IT WAS A FISHING COTTAGE IN THE 30s. YOU COULD LITERALLY WALK ACROSS THE STREET AND FISH. THE WATER CAME RIGHT UP TO THAT. SO I REALLY WANT TO MAINTAIN THE RED, THE HISTORY, AND MAKE IT SAFER AND NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE NEIGHBOR AND HAVE ROOM FOR DRAINAGE SO THAT THE HOUSE DOESN'T FLOOD. WHAT ELSE? We are proposing a walk-in closet and bathroom. This is where I got the wrong permit the wrong demolition permit I didn't go through planning. I just did it online on County access I was like cool. I'm approved and then I took the summer to take that down To have space also away from the neighbor Because like I said when he would smoke his cigarettes That was the wall between my house and his house. And plus, all the mold coming down and everything. I was having respiratory issues and all that. So that's why I had torn it down. This was the inside. That was right after the first rain. And so there's no way that the sellers didn't know about that. But that's OK. That's over with. This was the garage. it had a crack in the wall and all the the dirt would come in in the water um so yeah it wasn't and it also couldn't fit a car um so when we went to the county to try to get these plans they asked us to try to make a two-car garage work and that's why we can only have the eight inch setback and then move the yard over um we can't move it any further because where the septic system is we can't really move that and we can't move back because of the the solid uh rock in the back and there's the neighbor's house this is the little room that was above the garage and what we found out was was that that was not permitted the neighbors dropped a blackmail note in my mailbox and said if you come after us we're going to tell the county and they're going to come tear your house down because the garage was permitted, but I believe the room above it was not permitted. So that was just a little, like, they didn't even mail it. They put it in my mailbox, which was a little shady. Also on their Zillow ad, they had tons of blueprints all over the Zillow ad, so I had thought everything was permitted when I bought it. And that was on me for not verifying that everything was permitted and correct. So yeah, that's all. I don't know if you have any questions.

Thank you. Questions from Commissioner Boydston?

and not to belabor this but so i think you answered my question the wall that's eight inches away is going to be a cinder block wall all the way up yes and that so you don't have to finish the outside of it and it will act as as your uh your firewall yes for being so close and you don't have any windows in it correct yeah correct it'll be i think the garage is 12 feet but then the room above it will also have to have a cinder block wall So your neighbor's garage is just going to lean over into your.

It might. But we were connected and he did not upkeep his and his roof wasn't our roof were connected. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yes.

One question. So the room that you're going to build above the garage, is that going to be a separate ADU or.

No, that's going to be our master bedroom.

OK.

So right now there's a tiny bedroom. That tiny bedroom that we live in is going to be like the walkway into the master.

Yeah.

Yeah. We can't do an ADU, we looked into it, because I can't fit a 2,000 gallon septic tank. So the house is going to be all one house connected, the bottom and the top. The connection between the bottom and the top was not permitted also. It was these super steep stairs that I fell down a few times. So they had added, it was two separate houses, and then they had added this janky connection between the two. And we have plans to have stairs go up proper to code and everything.

Any other questions of the applicant? Secretary Luce, do we have any public comments or speakers on the item?

Actually, Chair Sandlin, the speakers that I have is also part of the applicant. His name is Oscar Ramirez.

Yeah, he's my architect designer.

He had to... Yeah, and also his wife also signed up, but I think she left too. So those were the only speakers that I have for this item.

Would staff like to make any closing remarks? I will now close the public hearing. Any discussion or a motion? Commissioner Boydston?

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Boydston.

I'll second that motion.

Second from Commissioner Kessley. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Commissioner Boydston?

Yes.

Commissioner Kessley? Yes. Vice Chair Cushing?

Yes.

Chair Sandlin?

Yes. Passes 4-0. Thank you so much.

Congratulations. Good luck.

I was a little nervous, thank you.

It's nice to see a dream come true.

The next item is item 6C, case number LU10-0003, applicant Specific Rock Inc. The project description is the applicant requests a modified conditional use permit to be granted, a reclamation plan amendment to be approved, and a discretionary tree permit to be granted to authorize the continued operation and expansion of an existing surface mining facility for an additional 60 years. The project location is located at 1000 South Howard Road in Camarillo in the unincorporated area of Ventura County. At this time, I'd like to ask each planning commissioner to state on the record whether or not he or she has received any oral 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. VICE CHAIR KUSHING.

NO DISCLOSURES.

CHAIR SANDLIN.

NO DISCLOSURES. CASE PLANNER JOHN NOVY, PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, CHAIR SANDLIN, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOHN NOVY, I'M THE MANAGER FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PERMITS WITH THE PLANNING DIVISION WITH THE COUNTY OF VENTURA. AS MENTIONED, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS CASE LU10-0003 FOR THE PACIFIC ROCK MINE. FOR THOSE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, YOU CAN CLICK THE RAISE HAND BUTTON AND YOU WILL BE ADDED TO THE QUEUE. IF YOU ARE ATTENDING VIA PHONE, PRESS THE STAR KEY AND 9 TO BE QUEUED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS WHEN APPROPRIATE. So this presentation is going to go over a couple of points on this project, location, history, and project description, environmental document, surface mining and reclamation act compliance, public comment in the errata, and recommended actions. The existing mine is located on the map here in between the cities of Camarillo and Thousand Oaks to the southwest of the Conejo grade. The two parcels that will compose the CUP boundary are zoned agricultural exclusive 40 acre minimum lot size and open space 160 acre minimum lot size respectively. Both parcels have a habitat connectivity and wildlife corridor overlay and the general plan designation for both parcels is open space. THERE'S MORE HISTORY TO THIS PROJECT THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. KIND OF KEEP IT AT A HIGH LEVEL FOR THIS PRESENTATION. QUARRYING AT THE SITE BEGAN IN LATE 1800s. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3817 WAS ISSUED IN 1980 AND EXTENDED TWICE TO HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE IN 2010. While processing this current application for LU 10-003, a compliance agreement was entered into between the county and the mine operator Pacific Rock that allowed continued operation while this modification was being processed. That compliance agreement is attached to the staff report as exhibit number 14. We had scheduled a Planning Commission hearing on this item back in August of 2025. That hearing was continued to address a Public Works Agricultural Grading Permit violation. Additionally, while processing this application, there were two other permits that were approved for the Pacific Rock Mine. The first in June 2010 was a permit adjustment to abate a violation for storage use and maintenance of equipment at the mine site. And the second in April of 2011 was a reclamation plan compliance amendment to abate a violation for mining outside the CUP boundary. So to address the Public Works Agricultural Grading Permit violation, in November 2012, Public Works issued an agricultural grading permit. That APN number is for the parcel to the north of the existing mine disturbance area. That grading permit had expired and was replaced in 2015 with a new grading permit. That permit subsequently expired and in September of 2020, a notice of noncompliance was recorded on that property. Staff were alerted to this violation and recorded of noncompliance on the northern parcel. As such, Planning Division was unable to continue processing the modification request under this current application until that violation was abated. The applicant applied for a new grading permit and in April 2026, Public Works issued a notice of completion on that grading permit to abate the violation. So for the project description, the applicant is requesting a modified conditional use permit, amended reclamation plan, certification of an EIR, and a discretionary tree permit. The conditional use permit would allow for the mine to operate for a 60-year time period. It would also allow for the excavation and export of approximately 29.7 million tons of material. I would like to take this time to point there is a typo in the staff report. The narrative of the project description incorrectly identifies that as approximately 13.2 million tons. However, in the table in the narrative of the staff report is correct with 29.7 and in the conditions of approval, both instances are correct. So I wanted to clarify that that narrative portion was wrong. THE RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE END USE OF THE MINE WILL BE FOR OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE. THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD ALSO AUTHORIZE THE IMPORT OF CONCRETE, ASPHALT AND SOIL TO BE PROCESSED AND RECYCLED ON THE SITE. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS ALSO INCLUDES A DISCRETIONARY TREE PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL OR ENCROACHMENT INTO PROTECTED TREES AS THE MINE EXPANDS. So this slide shows the existing operations at the mine that are not being proposed to change. They would still be limited to 1,500 tons on a daily limit. The same methods of removal and processing material at the site would continue. No new structures or equipment. The hours of the actual excavation and processing of the material would stay the same, and they would still be limited to the same number of truck trips. SO SOME CHANGES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IT WOULD INCREASE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AREA BY 93 ACRES, INCREASE THE DISTURBANCE AREA BY 110 ACRES, ADD AGRICULTURE AS AN ADDITIONAL END USE FOR increase the annual production by another 382,000 tons per year. As I mentioned, it will add the soil and concrete and asphalt importing and recycling and processing. It will add Sundays and increase the hours for truck operations, for water trucks, fueling, arrival and departure, and for the recycling, for bringing material in for the recycling plant. IT WOULD ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM VOLUME FOR THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND IT WOULD INCREASE THE EXPIRATION OF THE CUP TO JUNE 2086. So on this map it shows the existing conditional use permit boundary as the orange dashed line. The solid black line is the extent of existing disturbance area at the mine. The red dashed line would be the expanded CUP boundary and the black dashed line is the area that there would be a new disturbance if the CUP is approved as proposed. THE SITE WAS SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. OUR CONSULTANT WHO PREPARED THE EIR IS AVAILABLE ON ZOOM. THE PROCESS STARTED IN 2017 AND THE DRAFT EIR WAS INITIALLY CIRCULATED IN 2020 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. COMMENT RECEIVED FROM THAT INITIAL CIRCULATION IDENTIFIED THAT THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE RECIRCULATED. THAT HAPPENED IN 2022. In December of 2024, the applicant requested a change in the CUP term from 30 years to 60 years. At that time, staff in our EIR consultant reevaluated the findings of the EIR and determined that no new significant information had been provided that warranted a recirculation of that EIR. And therefore, in May of 2025, the final EIR was completed. The EIR identified that there is significant and unavoidable impacts to visual resources. The mining site is visible from public viewpoint, and that expansion would increase that visibility. There are mitigation measures for visual impacts. However, even with the mitigation measures in place, it would still be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, there was no feasible mitigation available to reduce that impact to a less than significant level. And in order to make the findings for a statement of overriding consideration, there is a document attached to the staff report as exhibit seven with those findings. The EIR also identified several categories that had potentially significant impacts that were mitigated to a less than significant level. They're identified on the screen. It's been a long day, so I won't read them all for you. And there were additional impacts that were identified that were either less than significant or no impact in the environmental impact report. So for mines to be approved within the state of California, there's the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act that requires that a permit be granted by the county, a reclamation plan be approved by the county, and that an adequate financial assurance is on file with the county and the state. The mine is in compliance with all three of these requirements. ADDITIONALLY, THE RECLAMATION PLAN HAS REQUIREMENTS THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY AND STATE STANDARDS. THE CUP IS CONDITIONED TO REQUIRE SITE RECLAMATION AND ANNUAL SITE INSPECTIONS WITH ANNUAL REPORTS. THE RECLAMATION PLAN INCLUDES ENGINEERED EXCAVATION PLANS ACCOUNTING FOR TOPOGRAPHICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES AND IT HAS A RECLAIMED END USE FOR OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE. I will point out as well that the reclamation plan was amended from the prior hearing. That also includes the Conejo buckwheat as part of the seed mixture. And it was accidentally excluded from the prior reclamation plan. So that is a change from the prior hearing documents. So prior to the hearing that was continued in August of 2025, there were seven public comments received. The comments were largely focused on the EIR expansion areas. Staff has provided responses to those comments and attached it to the staff report as exhibit 13. Additionally, there were 15 more comments that were received prior to this hearing that we're having now. The comments were in opposition to the project and requested a reduced project scope or denial of the requested CUP. All of those comments received were provided to the Planning Commission. Additionally, yesterday we prepared an errata memo that corrects an error in the conditions of approval, which is exhibit six. That document identified the CUP term as 60 years from the prior hearing that has been continued, and therefore we have updated it to 60 years from this hearing. THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT. I WON'T READ THEM ALL. BUT THEY WOULD ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF THEY WISH TO APPROVE THE CUP WITH THE AMENDED RECLAMATION PLAN, THE DISCRETIONARY TREE PERMIT AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Once again, I'd like to remind people who are participating via Zoom, if you do wish to speak on this item, please click the raise hand button. And if you are attending via Zoom via telephone, press the star key and nine to be queued for public comments. This concludes our presentation. Planning staff and public works land development staff is available as well as Bob Delp, who is the EIR consultant. He's available via Zoom and the applicant team has a presentation prepared as well.

Any questions of staff by the Commission? Commissioner Boyson.

I was just wondering if this version still has the easterly expansion that's going to reduce the animal corridor distance from 1500 to 800?

It does include the additional eastern expansion. However, the overall extent of the width of the corridor is going to be greater than the 800 feet. I THINK WE CAN I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY OFF HAND WHAT THAT THE OVERALL DISTANCE IS BUT THE 800 FEET THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THE FEIR WAS IDENTIFYING THE MINIMUM WITH NECESSARY FOR NO IMPACT TO MOUNTAIN LINES AND THE PROPOSED EXPANSION ACTUALLY INCLUDES GREATER DISTANCE THAN WHAT THAT MINIMUM PINCH POINT IDENTIFIED.

So maybe the applicant can expand on that. Correct.

The applicant's biologist, I believe, is also available via Zoom who prepared that document, would be much better able to speak to that than I could.

And then also, again, these are kind of old notes, but expanding hours or days of operation to Sundays and also holidays. Is that correct?

The expansion of the days would only be related to the trucking to bring in water truck fuel.

But does it include holidays?

I believe so.

Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions of staff by the Commission?

I just want to note, Commissioner Boyston, I've been informed that the total width of the corridor is 1,000 feet from the record.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation at this time?

Boydston, nice to see you. Council, thank you so much. Jane Farkas, J. Eleanor Consulting. I'd first like to thank Mr. Novi for his detailed presentation. We appreciate the planning division's time and efforts to get the project before you here today. Are they going to queue it up or? We did bring a PowerPoint. I don't know.

Okay.

Okay. And just like to a little background for you is I actually submitted the CUP modification application back in January 2010. So been on this project for a long time. I worked on the project until 2018 and then returned in 2024 and it has been processing at the county for over 16 years. So we are very happy to be here today. I'd like to introduce our applicant team. This is Nicole Corey from Pacific Rock, and Graham Stevens, CESPI Consulting. We've got Mari Quillman from E Corp Consulting, who is our biologist. She's available via Zoom, I believe. She's queued up for questions. Commissioner Boydston, and I'm gonna move it over to Nick. We're tag team in this, so.

Good afternoon. My name is Nicole Corey and I represent the second generation of my family's ownership of Pacific rock. I'm excited to be here today. I wanted to introduce myself today as a recognize that I'm going to be the face of this company and partnering with the community for years to come. We're going to talk a little bit about what we do and some of the products that we have, and I'm going to queue us up.

Aha.

Okay, so a little bit about what we do and some background you did share. We've been in continuous operation since the late 1800s. In the past 60 years, there's only been two owners. We produce high quality riprap, crushed rock and gravel. All of these are used throughout Ventura County today and historically. These materials are used every single day in construction, the roads that we drive on, agriculture, erosion, many utility projects. Again, these are critical infrastructure projects that Ventura County has. and some of the products that we have. What's important to note is that we supply materials that our communities depend on every single day and often without even realizing it. Again, the roads that we drive on, the drainage systems that protect our homes and our properties, as well as the utility projects that serve our neighborhoods, they all rely on the aggregate materials that, like our quarry, provide. Riprap, it's used to protect our shorelines, it's used in our riverbeds, it's also used to support bridges and other foundational infrastructure needs. And then two recent examples of this is the riprap and crushed rock that was used to stabilize portions of the Caligas Creek in downtown Moorpark, as well as the repair that was made to the Faroe Debris Basin. In Ventura County, we are the preferred hard rock supplier, especially for detention basin construction. The closest alternative is in Palmdale. When we think about the cost of that, the cost of transportation in this case actually exceeds the cost of the rock itself.

I will pass it off.

Thank you. I'm back again. All right, so far as some of the project benefits, this project will continue to be a local provider of rock products to Ventura County and will ensure that an important existing local source of material is maintained. The addition of the concrete and asphalt recycling conserves natural resources and lowers greenhouse gas emissions and produces additional material also for the region. And I think one of the main points I'd like for you to take away with this is that there will be no daily or annual increase in truck trips with this project. The additional hours of operation are for site preparation, maintenance, and to provide flexibility for specific jobs. And a lot of it is related to Caltrans because those jobs are a lot of times outside normal operating hours. So I'm going to turn it over to Graham.

Thanks, Jane. And thanks to the commissioners. I'm Graham Stevens with CESPI Consulting, land use CEQA consultant. Been doing this for about 15 years. And like Jane, I think I've been working on this project for eight years. So very happy to get to this point. One of the first items I want to speak to is just the critical need for construction materials here in Ventura County. There's not a lot of mine sites here in the county, and I don't think there's any mine sites that produce the products that Pacific Rock does. And so the county's growing, we're dynamic, a lot of construction's occurring, and we need these products here locally. And so on this slide, the California Geologic Survey periodically will do an analysis of the entire state. And what they do is they compare the projected 50-year demand for aggregate in the various regions of the state and then compare that to the permitted reserves, the actual permitted reserves in that area. And as you can see, Ventura County is often, you know, woefully deficient when it comes to local production of construction materials. So that's where Pacific Rock is just a critical part of that equation to ensure that we can produce the products here locally. So what are the benefits of local production? As Nicole said, you know, that if they're not produced here, they're going to come from somewhere. And often those facilities are much more distant, distantly located from where the construction is occurring. So what does that mean? It means more haul trucks on the road. It means those trucks are traveling farther distances. That means more air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, congestion, accidents, nuisances like noise and road dust. So having a good local source of construction materials is critical from an environmental perspective and especially from a greenhouse gas emissions perspective. The last slide that I wanted to speak to is just the environmental review. As I said, I'm a CEQA consultant, so I've done CEQA documents for mine sites all over the state. I'm also a noise and vibration technical expert. I did the noise study for this project, so I'm happy to answer any questions there. But I can say without a doubt that this EIR, one of the more robust analyses that I've ever been a part of, And I can say unequivocally, this EIR has more mitigations than I've ever seen for a mine site of this nature. There are 61 total mitigations. And truthfully, that doesn't even really scratch the surface. Because to use noise as an example, yes, technically, there is one noise mitigation. But within that mitigation are six individual restrictions, provisions that will control the on-site noise. So really, like I said, you know, extensive mitigations, especially when it comes to biology. And as Jane said, we have Mari Quillman on Zoom who can answer questions related to that. But again, I just wanted to highlight the robust nature of the environmental analysis that went into this.

Okay, I'm gonna wrap this up, so we're not too long. So as I stated earlier, this project will continue to be an important local provider of high quality rock products to Ventura County. We have balanced the need for products produced at Pacific Rock with the various environmental concerns. We have worked with the planning division and the other departments at the county to create an environmentally sound project with mitigation measures that provide protection of the neighboring properties, wildlife, and the other important resources in the area. And the final reclaimed land will contribute to long-term passive open space and agricultural resources within the county. This is an important project for the county infrastructure projects and we appreciate your time and consideration of this. We're here for any questions you may have and then we'd also just like to stay to reserve maybe a couple minutes at the end if there's some public comments that we could, you know, need to respond to. So we're here for that. Thank you. Questions or?

Any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Boyson?

Couple questions. You mentioned in your presentation there was no change in daily or annual trip trucks. Yes. How is that possible when you're adding days of operation? Are you actually lowering the amount of trip trucks on the other days?

It spreads them out over a longer period of time.

over so it's actually lessen a less number of trips per day to the existing truck limit is on a daily basis so yes there would be in theory potentially more trucks more days per week that trucks could deliver materials correct right so there'd be more truck trip

TRUCK TRIPS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS?

NOT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS EITHER BECAUSE THAT IS SET BY THE ANNUAL PRODUCTION LIMITS AS WELL. SO REALLY WHEN IT COMES TO TRUCK TRIPS IT ALL IS DOWNSTREAM FROM WHAT THE DAILY ANNUAL PRODUCTION LIMITS ARE, RIGHT? IT'S ON A TON BASIS AND NONE OF THOSE ARE CHANGING. SO THAT'S SORT OF, YOU KNOW, YES, COULD THEY TRUCK ON SUNDAYS? BUT AS JANE SAID, RIGHT, IT WOULD BE THERE'S STILL THAT SAME PRODUCTION LIMIT THAT APPLIES SO IT WOULD JUST BE SPREAD OUT OVER THE WEEK IF YOU WILL.

So why do you need to add more days, holidays and Sundays?

Well, I don't know. Holidays were brought up before. I don't know that we're adding holidays, Sundays, but Nicole, you can speak to that. There are Caltrans projects that we'd love to support. There are, you know, with the extended hours, right, often construction begins early in the morning. We want to have the trucks ready and staged up for those projects. Caltrans projects occur in the night, on weekends. So it really just gives us flexibility to support a broader variety of development projects.

Just real quick on that. I believe it was back in 2015, and I don't know the exact date. We had massive storms. And Highway 1 blew out. And Caltrans got all the riprap from this project. We had to get an emergency use authorization, which took a couple days through the county. This quarry basically got Highway 1 opened up very quickly. What this is going to allow is flexibility for projects like that.

Okay. Just a follow-up question. With this expansion, are you going to be grading or disturbing ridgelines?

No.

No. No, we're underneath.

I'm sorry?

No is the answer.

No. Okay. I don't know if we can have the mining plan that we can show you, but it is below. We're below the ridge line.

Okay. No intention on dealing with ridge lines?

Absolutely not.

Okay. And then in your reclamation plan, does that include landform grading?

Yes, there will be some recontouring. In fact, I think that may have been one of the visual mitigations that came out of the EIR as well. Once you're done mining and the material is gone, you try to make the landforms blend in as much as possible with the surrounding areas as part of reclamation.

Because I don't think it was part of the plan when I saw it prior.

I'm sure we described contouring, recontouring, and I don't believe we're going to change the slope conditions. It's mostly just recontouring to kind of soften any of the edges in the pit walls, correct?

It's a hard rock quarry, so the lines are the lines.

But in the reclamation plan, it would soften those lines using landform? To the extent feasible, yes, correct.

And you're open to that? The devil's always in the details, I suppose. But yes, I mean, the goal of reclamation, right, is to make the mining pit blend in with the surrounding area as much as possible. That's why we propose the revegetation seed mix and things of that nature, so yes.

Correct, thank you. Any other questions of the commission? Yeah, I have a question. Of the applicant?

I have a question. Commissioner Cushing. Going from a 30-year CEP to 60 years, what's the justification for that?

there were some, When we originally did the conversion from tonnage and yardage, the numbers were incorrect. And so we thought it was a 30-year life of mine permit for the mining plant. So when we went back in and looked at everything, one of the engineers said, hey, this calculation was incorrect. So I went to the county, and we talked with them. And we said, are there going to be any additional impacts? you know, we'd like to do a life of mine so that So that the person so what's the what do you think the the life of the mine is that 60 years 60 years? Yeah So that's what the mine plan shows So we could You know have a 30-year permit but then the the mine wouldn't be where the mine plan is the mine plan shows a 60-year permit and

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER KESLEY?

YOU KNOW, WITH THE LIFE OF THE MINING, IT'S GOING TO PROBABLY FILL A NEED FOR THAT 60-YEAR PERIOD, BUT IF SOMETHING CHANGES AND WE NO LONGER NEED THE PRODUCT, WE HAVE THE RECLAMATION PLAN IN PLACE IF YOU HAVE TO CLOSE YOUR DOORS, CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS APPLICANT? Secretary Luce, do we have any public comments?

Chair Sandlin, yes, we do have speakers for this item. And I think as I double checked with you earlier, you would like to give them just the same amount of time like what we have on agenda item number one, which is a one minute.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you. So I'll go ahead and announce the first speaker and then the following ones. So if they're here, please come forward. So the first one is Tom Pagano, followed by Steve Mora, and then Randy Dennings.