Planning Commission - public_hearing

Sounds good.

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting of July 9th, 2026. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Good morning. Commissioner Boydston?

Here.

Commissioner Kessley is absent today. Commissioner Ayala?

Here.

Vice Chair Cushing?

Here.

Chair Sandlin?

Here.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The next item is public comments. Secretary Luce, did we receive any comments on the items not included on this agenda?

Chair Sandlin, we did not receive any public comments for item number four.

Thank you. The next item is approval of the minutes for June 18th, 2026. Do we have any discussion or a motion to approve the minutes for June 18th, 2026?

Move to approve.

Move to approve from Commissioner Boydston.

Second.

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

Commissioner Boydston?

Yes.

Commissioner Ayala? Vice Chair Cushing?

Yes.

Chair Sandlin?

Yes. The next item is item 6A, case number PL250089. The applicant is Amarok for GH Camarillo LLC. The project description, the applicant requests approval of a variance for deviations to development standards of the Ventura County non-coastal zoning ordinance related to height and setback requirements for accessory structures. The project location is at 645 West Laguna Road on agricultural land in the unincorporated area of Ventura County. At this time, I'd like to ask each planning commissioner to state on record whether or not he or she has received any oral or written ex parte communication or has any 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 Luce, please take roll call.

Commissioner Boydston.

No disclosures.

Commissioner Ayala? I have no disclosures. Vice Chair Cushing?

No disclosures.

Chair Sandlin?

No. And Planning Manager Christina Borrero, please proceed with your presentation.

Good morning, Chair Salin, Commissioners, Christina Bolero with the Planning Division. I'm the manager of the Planning Programs section. Before you today is a request for a variance for the Emma Rock is the applicant and it's for the GH Camarillo site and GH Camarillo LLC site in Camarillo, also known as Glass House. Next. Next slide. For those wishing to participate on Zoom, you may register at the link provided on the screen. If you are participating on Zoom, you can press the raise hand button to indicate that you wish to speak. For those participating by phone, you can dial star the nine to be queued to speak. Next. So my presentation today will cover several topics, including project location, history and description, project description, standards for the variants, and the recommended actions. Next. So the project site, as I mentioned, is located in the unincorporated area of Camarillo on about 159 acres. Lost Postage Road is about a quarter mile east of the project site and the United States Route 101 is about three miles north of the project site. Next. The project side has a general plan designation of agricultural and zoning days designation of agricultural exclusive 40 acres minimum lot size, also known as a 40 acres next. These are some site photos of the site and specifically the request for the variance. So the slide on my left is an aerial view of the site looking towards Moore Park. Greenhouses 3 and 4 are demarcated on the slide and they're located in the rear of the property. This picture on my right is us standing on the emergency access road that is directly behind Greenhouses 3 and 4. Emergency access road in the middle of the picture, the approximate location of the pole, black pole is, and also the property line. So it's important to note that the property line is located outside of the existing chain link fence. Next. So the property has a pretty lengthy history. So in 1996, CAP 4924 was approved by the county to construct a 20 acre greenhouse. And then between 1997 and 2008, greenhouses two through six were constructed and approved along with accessory structures and additional infrastructure. And a series of permit adjustments between 2009 and 2020 were approved for the installation of accessory structures and the legalization of structures and the expansion of other structures. In October 2021, a zoning clearance was approved by the planning division and issued for the construction of, excuse me, for the conversion of greenhouses one, two, and six from tomato operation to commercial cannabis. Cultivation greenhouses 3, 4 and 5 were also converted to cannabis cultivation in July 2023, which also received zoning clearance. In September 2025, a zoning clearance was issued by the planning division for the installation. of six 30 foot high poles with security cameras affixed at the top of each pole for greenhouses two, five and six. The zoning clearance was extended in May of this year. And in January of 2026, a glass house submitted a modification application to the existing cp for the continued operation and maintenance of the agriculture facility for an unlimited term and the replacement of greenhouses three and four and that permit is still being processed by the county next So, the project description specifically is a request for a variance from deviations from or the non coastal zoning ordinance specifically with regards to sections 8106-1, which is the accessory structure height and setback limitations and section 8106-5.1a, which are interior and rotations regarding interior and rear lot line setbacks. And then, as I mentioned previously, the actual project is the installation of two security cameras on steel poles at Greenhouses 3 and 4. Next. This slide represents the actual site plan and an aerial of the site. So the picture on my left is just the site plan showing greenhouses three and four. The circle is demarcating where the actual infrastructure related to the variance is going to be located. And then the aerial on my right shows the greenhouses again, but also includes Laguna Road at the bottom of the aerial. Next. This is the elevation plan, as you can see, it shows the height of the pole at 30 feet and there also is a 1 foot footing for each pole. So the total height would be 31 feet, but the cameras would be located at the 30 foot level. We also have a deep depiction of the. Location of the pole and the actual power source that's required for each poll at the each of the greenhouses. and a depiction of the 30-foot height of the pole in relation to the greenhouse building. Next. So staff evaluated the project and determined that it was deemed categorically exempt pursuant to sections 15.301, class one, which is existing facilities, and 15.303, class three, which is new construction and conversion of small structures. Next. So the very before you is the applicant does bear the burden of demonstrating to the to your commission that the standards for granting the variance pursuant to the can be met and satisfied in support of the request. The applicant presented rationale, which is included in exhibit 7 of your staff report and to outline the accompanying reasons why the variance is sought. So specifically, our ncdo has four requirements for variance that there's no special circumstances that there's no special privilege that there's an unnecessary hardship that there is no unnecessary hardship and there's no determination. That there's no issue for public safety, health and welfare. Next. So the rationale that the applicant provided is as follows. Basically, there is a state law for cannabis cultivation and operations that requires that there be a fixed digital video surveillance within 20 feet of all points of entry and exit on the licensed premises. Specifically for greenhouses 3 and 4, this cannot be achieved because there is that emergency fire lane. That's directly behind the greenhouses that prohibits the polls being located. Outside of the setback and then compliance with the. um there's also line of sight communication requirements um as i mentioned um in the project history there is the planning division approved polls and cameras at the other four greenhouses in order for all of the communication communications being the security cameras to communicate with each other they have to be at the same height so they can communicate across across the facility And that means that it needs to be the polls that greenhouse is 3 and 4 need to be 30 feet in height. Next in addition, if the variance was not approved, additional infrastructure and increased development would need to be. Provided for the for the site, and that means that there would be additional impacts that that the planning division has not yet evaluated. And also it's basically system preference, sorry, system performance requirements rather than the location. As I mentioned, as for all of the security cameras to operate correctly, they have to be at the same height and there'd be no obstruction of the site. To ensure that the project complies with our conditions and with the NCVO, the applicant has agreed to the following conditions to provide a contact person for complaints and a condition compliance review, which occurs annually, approximately every three years. Next. So staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project as proposed in the staff report and find that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and find that the project complies with the NCZO and the general plan. Next. So that concludes my presentation. And if you have any questions of staff, I'm available to answer those questions. But we also have the applicant team here as well. We can answer questions for you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions of staff by the commission? No questions, seeing none, would the applicant like to make any presentation on this item?

Good morning. My name is Luis Farias. I'm with Amarok long-term Camarillo resident. But I wanted to just take the opportunity to thank you, thank the staff for the incredible work that they put into this. We appreciate it and look forward to getting approval here today. Thank you. Thank you.

Secretary Luce, do we have any public comments or speakers on this item?

Chair Sandlin, I did not receive any public speakers for this particular item. Thank you.

and would staff like to make any closing remarks no remarks all right i'll now close the public hearing any discussion or emotion on this item just one one one question it said that they have to have cameras on access to the property is that

Commissioner Cushing, the requirement for state law requires that there be cameras located within 20 feet of every exit and entrance to the site. Because of the location of Greenhouses 3 and 4 and those entry and exit points, it would require that the poles be in the setback.

Okay. But is there entrance and exits on the back of the property then?

Commissioner Cushing, there's not.

So why do they need the pool? I mean, if it's required because there's entrance and exits, but there's no entrance and exit back there, why do they need cameras in?

Good morning, everybody. My name is Miguel Campos. I am the director of security and the director of safety here for Glass House. The purpose of the cameras is to be able to provide a security advantage just in case there's any inbound imminent threats. So we're not calling the police unwillingly. If there's a tractor out there, if there's a coyote out there, we just want to be able to look around the property.

Okay. Makes sense. It's a big operation and they want to basically keep track of everything that's going on around there. I'd want a camera too. Do we have any other discussion or emotion for this applicant?

Yes, I did have one question. So just wanting to get some clarifications here. The reason why these two polls want to be constructed is essentially to ensure meeting the requirements that have been imposed by the California Department of Cannabis Control. Is that correct? All right. Thank you.

Sounds good. We have a discussion or another more discussion or a motion on this item from any of the commissioners?

I'll make a motion to approve with staff recommendations.

We have a motion to approve and we have a second. Motion to approve from Commissioner Boydston and a second to approve from Commissioner Ayala. Secretary Luce, will you take roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Boydston?

Yes.

Commissioner Ayala? Yes. Vice Chair Cushing?

Yes.

Chair Sandlin?

Yes. it passes uh four to zero congratulations all right and uh we'll now proceed to item 7a a report from planning manager uh borrero or rob the boss that's up to give us the

Thank you Mr. Chair and good morning Commissioners. I just wanted to thank the group here including the applicant team for getting together on a July morning to make sure that we're proceeding ahead with our review of our applications. There was some discussion of postponing this item until August when you next meet. And again, the emphasis is on streamlining and making sure we're moving applicants through the process as quickly as possible. So I want to thank Luz for all the... arrangements that she made to have this meeting. We weren't able to meet upstairs today. And thank you all for taking time out of your morning today to hear this item. We also want to thank GSA and ITSD, the other departments that were able to facilitate having us have the meeting today and not wait until August. It was important to proceed with this applicant and this application. And we're looking for all sorts of ways to make it easier on our applicants and guide them through the process expeditiously and efficiently. And then I just wanted to say Susan Curtis is unfortunately out sick today. she would normally be giving the um be pinch hitting for dave ward who's who continues to be on leave but i asked christina since she was going to be in the meeting today if she could give the director's report so christina will be doing that but nice to see y'all thank you rob thank you

So for the planning, for the Board of Supervisors hearings, so on June 23rd of this year, the Planning Division brought forward a public hearing to consider approval of the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to the Coastal Area Plan and the Local Coastal Plan and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance adjusting sea level rise. So that was brought to your Planning Commission on February 25th of last year. and it went to the board on June 23rd, and I believe it got approved. Up next for the planning commission is on August 6th, there is a item for a retail building materials and sales yard, and that's the only item for August 6th so far.

Great. Well, thank you very much, Christina. You did a great job today, both as your presentation and as your director presentation as well. We thank you for that. Any other items that the commissioners wish to discuss or introduce? Seeing none, I'll now adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Appreciate you guys. That was quick. I think it's not even 9 o'clock yet. We're walking the building.