Planning Commission - public_hearing

Good morning. I'd like to call the order of the Planning Commission meeting of September 17th, 2026. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Good morning. Commissioner Boydston?

Here.

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

Here.

Chair Sandlin?

Here. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Yeah, but it's that mic right there, so we need to switch.

Thank you.

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

Commissioner, Chair Sandlin, yes, we do. We do have one speaker for this item. His name is Brian Gordon. Brian, if you could just go ahead and sign in. Okay, Brian, go ahead.

Yeah, I didn't have any comment.

Just part of the meeting, just to watch.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. I will go ahead and kind of like take note of that one then. Thank you for, you know, signing up.

Yes. Thank you for attending, Brian. The next item is approval of the minutes for August 20th, 2026. Do we have any discussion or a motion to approve the minutes for August 20th, 2026? Move to approve. I have a motion from Commissioner Boydston.

Second.

A second from Commissioner Cushing. Secretary Luce, please take roll call.

Commissioner Boydston.

Yes.

Commissioner Kessley. Yes. Vice Chair Cushing. Yes. Chair Sandlin.

Yes. That passes for zero. The next announcement of Spanish interpreting services are available for this meeting. Please ask staff from the language interpreter services to come forward to let the audience know that Spanish interpreting services is available.

Hi, good morning.

Muy buenos dias. Tenemos servicio de interpretación simultánea del inglés al español y del español al inglés. Si alguna persona desea expresar sus comentarios, favor de pasar con los intérpretes. Gracias.

Gracias. The next item is item 6A. I'd like to ask the Director Ward to give a couple comments before we start this. This is case number PL250013, applicants to the County of Ventura. The project description is a public hearing to consider the adoption of County-initiated amendments to Articles 1 through 11, 13, 18, and 19 of the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The Ventura County Ordinance Code Division 8, CHAPTER 1, TO MODERNIZE AND STREAMLINE VARIOUS LAND USE PERMIT AND REGULATORY PROCESSES INCLUDING UPDATES TO FILM PERMIT STANDARDS AND REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL C1 ZONES. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND REZONE ALL PARCELS ZONE C1 TO THE COMMERCIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONE. PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE. In the project location the proposed amendments apply to all parcels in non-coastal unincorporated areas of the county and the proposed zone change applies to all C1 zoned parcels. And Director Ward, would you like to make a couple comments?

Yes, thank you, Chair Sandlin, Commissioners. We're pleased today as the Planning Division to be presenting our phased approach to the reform items that the Board of Supervisors directed us to commence with last November. my team the planning division worked carefully during january and february to help design how we could tackle the reform items in a three phased approach and this phase one is here to here for you today there's been a lot of work and an ambitious schedule to make the process get us here today and so i'm very proud of my team and you'll be hearing today from our star players of the team which include project leads Franca Rosengren and Jessica Winn but this has been a teamed effort and we wouldn't have been able to make our schedule for this hearing date without the full team so if you would indulge me for a moment I wanted to just recognize the additional staff that have been involved in this effort specific to the larger package of the NCZO amendments. This has included guidance with Planning Manager Winston Wright, who's to my right here. We had John Akindo, Michael Conger, Rashida Kakadakia, Donald Nielsen, Erin Engstrom, Brittany Weber, all in amongst their regular duties, giving us guidance, reviewing drafts, providing feedback, doing research on best practices, many of which were incorporated into this package. For the film-specific amendments, Jessica was also served with project, excuse me, Planning Manager Shelly Sussman, but the team included Kylie Spieth, Kristi Hun, Brittany Weber, and we also had a lot of work from the Building and Safety Division and FIRE. So from Building and Safety is Ruben Brera, Stephanie Silva, Jason De La Torres, and then from FIRE, Lori Ross, Nix Resendez, and Karina Cagley. So it's been a major endeavor of working closely all together to now provide you the results of our work. There's been stakeholder engagements as well along the way. And so we're eager to hear your feedback and thoughts about the amendments plus the public. And we're here to address any other types of amendments and revisions as we present it. And so with that, I hand it over to Francesca, excuse me, Franco Rosengren. Thank you.

Thank you, Dave. Good morning, Chair Sandlin and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Franca Rosengren. I'm the case planner for the project before you today, which are text amendments to the Non-Costal Zoning Ordinance, also referred to as year one of the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Reform Program. That's part of the three-year work plan for the Planning Division. That's case number PL25-0013. and as Dave mentioned Jessica Nguyen will also be presenting the proposed amendments to the film permit standards including possible questions if you have any for the building official and also representatives of the Fire Protection District and they'll be made available after our presentation. So a quick overview of what I'll be going through, a brief background of how we got here today and the proposed key changes, public comments, environmental review, findings of approval for this project and then lastly the recommended actions for your commission. and for participants on zoom who would like to speak please press the raise hand button on zoom now and you'll be connected at the appropriate time and if participating by telephone please press the star button and then nine to be queued and this is for agenda item 6a and i will be trying to speak slower than i normally do just because we do have an interpretive services So in November of 2025, the board directed planning staff to implement a comprehensive planning and zoning regulatory reform program to streamline permit processes for both ministerial and discretionary permits to promote efficiency, to enhance consistency, and to provide greater flexibility and development standards. So these proposed changes would encourage innovative and support entrepreneurship, create predictability, and balance the protection of resources. Prior to the November 2025 board's direction, the planning director initiated reform efforts as well in 2024 and 2025 as phase one and phase two amendments to the non-costal zoning ordinance. So the first phase was completed in 2024 and consisted of the key changes there were the public noticing requirements. We changed those from 10 days to 20 days for ordinance amendments. We made some clarifying revisions for wholesale nurseries and to accessory bathrooms. and then also made some changes to set back distances for non-habitable structures. And then in 2025, additional edits were completed. Most notable of those were the exemption for county projects and projects on county-owned land being exempt from the regulations of the non-coastal zoning ordinance. So as part of today's reform efforts, it's under the non-coastal zone reform program. And this is year one of a three-year project. So today we'll be going over proposed changes to convert CUPs to PD permits for certain land uses, rezoning parcels that are zoned right now to C1 to the CPD zone, updating and modernizing the film permit standards, enhancing flexibility and development, adding allowable land uses in the commercial industrial zones, and then removing public hearing requirements for administrative variances. These are just some Key changes there are a lot of proposed changes and the ordinance but we just wanted to highlight those ones specifically and We are open to answering any questions on items that I haven't presented today so we have years two and three that are being built upon the 2024 and 25 amendments and then also today's amendments that we're presenting you today. And the project today is anticipated to go to the board in December of 2026 of this year. So the proposed amendments are divided into two categories. There are clerical and clarifying amendments and process improvement amendments. The clerical amendments consist of typographical edits, correcting grammar, clarifying existing regulations so that they're easier to understand. And then the process improvement amendments are subdivided into three separate categories. And those are permit streamlining, commercial and industrial land use opportunities, and then providing more flexibility for development standards. So under permit streamlining, oh, I also want to mention that a lot of these amendments overlap the different process improvement categories. So we just put them in where we thought they would be most appropriate, but they do overlap for several. So again, I'm going to go over it really quickly, converting CUPs to PDs, downshifting decision-making authority for certain land uses, making exemptions for certain structures, and adding standards for abandonment of use. For commercial industrial land use opportunities, these would support economic development and allow property owners to utilize their property with a broader range of land uses allowed in the industrial and commercial zones, and then also simplifying the zoning ordinance by removing unnecessary commercial office and commercial neighborhood zones. The last item, providing greater flexibility, we've provided some extensions to zoning clearances and then also provided more opportunities for rebuilding nonconforming structures without having to meet current standards. and then also providing more opportunities for property owners that have property in residential zones to utilize more of their property by allowing more square footage, and then also modernizing and updating the film permit standards. So one of the efforts to streamline permitting processes is to convert the conditional use permit or CUP requirement to plan development permits for certain eligible land uses. And before staff's process of determining which land uses would be eligible for a permit, it's important to understand the distinction between a CUP and a PD. So a CUP is a discretionary permit best suited for projects that would have incompatibility issues and the zoning designation it will be located in and with the existing and potential surrounding uses. To approve a CUP certain findings must be made and for a CUP there is an extra finding of approval that the project is continues to be compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area. So for this reason typically an expiration date is conditioned to the project and prior to the expiration date of a CUP a property owner must come in and submit a permit modification to extend the timeline of that CUP. So this modification process allows the planning division to reassess whether the operation should be permitted to continue based on compatibility findings as well as other findings of approval. And so a PD permit is also a discretionary permit But therefore projects that are presumptively allowed in the zoning designation It will be located in but it does still require site specific specific evaluation so a project subject to a PD permit does not have to make the finding that it's continues to be compatible with a existing and future land uses in the area. But one of the greater distinctions between a PD and a CUP is that PD permit is that PDs don't have a fixed expiration date. So the expiration dates associated with CUPs that are proposed to be converted to PD permits will no longer apply. And then I also just want to note that both CUPs and PD permits go through the environmental review, findings of approval, and a public hearing. So staff conducted an inventory of all of the land uses that require a CUP. And I'm sorry, I'm distracted by him on the phone. And which ones would be eligible to be converted to a PD based on the purpose statement of the zone and then also the key characteristics of that land use. So for example, a CUP is best suited for projects that are primarily outdoors. TEMPORAL IN NATURE AND HAVE NO PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SO STAFF HAS ALSO DETERMINED THAT LAND USES THAT WERE CATEGORIZED IN THE USE MATRIX THAT ARE SOLELY BY THE SIZE OF A STRUCTURE, THAT THOSE ARE BEST SUITED FOR A PD PERMIT. FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE A GREENHOUSE STRUCTURE THAT IS FROM UP TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET, IT REQUIRES A CUP WHERE THAT'S JUST A STRUCTURE AND STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE MORE SUITABLE AS A PD PERMIT. So some examples I have here are the private schools would be changing to a PD permit, agricultural structures, sales facilities, agricultural sales facilities, and assembly uses. There are several, but these are just some that I'm showing you here. A lot of industrial and commercial land uses have also been proposed to be converted to PD permits. So this is an excerpt of the use matrix to demonstrate how staff came up with the numbers of how many land uses and then how many CUPs were converted to PD permits. On the left hand side is the land use category. And for example, we have assembly uses there. And then in the red box, we have the list of zoning designations. Assembly use would count as one land use category and based on all of our analysis and research, it's been determined that a total of 66 land use categories are proposed to be converted to PD permits. And then the number of CUPS that will be converted to PD permits by zoning designation and land use category is a total of 255 CUPS converted to PD permits. So the reform efforts also aim to support entrepreneurship and enhance economic development in the existing commercial and industrial zones. Staff proposes to allow a broader range of commercial industrial uses in these zones by expanding existing commercial and industrial uses into those zones as appropriate. Similar to how staff determined which land uses would be eligible to change from the permit type from a CUP to a PD permit, staff also conducted an inventory of existing land uses and development allowed in at least one of the commercial and industrial zones and whether those land uses met the purpose and intent of the prospective zones and if the use was similar in nature and intensity. So I'd like to go over the purpose statements of the industrial zones. So the M1 zone, just to give you some information on this, the M1 zone is the industrial park zone and is suitable for light industrial service and technical research and related business office uses. It's quote unquote an industrial park. The M2 zone is limited industrial zone and is suitable for a broad range of industrial activities that also include manufacturing, processing, and fabrication. And the M3 zone is our heaviest manufacturing zone and includes general manufacturing, processing, and fabrication. The IND zone is a zone that is in our old town Saticoy development code in that area of Saticoy, and it is similar in nature to the M1 and M2 zones. The CPD and the TC and RMU, those allow a variety of retail uses and the TC does allow some industrial and the R which is residential mixed use allows mostly multifamily housing but some commercial aspects to it. So it's also worth noting that along with the expansion of existing uses in the industrial and commercial zones, several CUPs are converting to PD permits, which will make the change of use or tenant change process under a PD permit easier as long as the new use requires the same PD permit type. and the parking requirements are met. So this change of use and tenant change would be a ministerial process under those circumstances with the issuance of a zoning clearance, a building tax certificate license, and then a certificate of occupancy with the building department. So some examples of the expansion land uses that are expanding into industrial zone or commercial zone are indoor batting cages and golf driving ranges. They're allowed in the M1 and expanded into the M2 zone. We have gymnasiums that are allowed in the M1 zone, expanding into the M2 zone. Arts, crafts, and improvement training allowed in M1, expanding to the M2. Health services currently allowed in the CPD and expanding to the M1 zone. Laboratories allowed in M2 and M3 and proposed to expand to the CPD and M1. And then alcohol beverages manufacturing, it's currently allowed in the M3 and proposed to expand to the M1 and M2 zones, along with a proposed tasting room, which would be allowed in all commercial and industrial zones as accessory to alcohol beverage manufacturing. So there are a total of 44 existing land uses that were proposed to go into various industrial and commercial zones. Another change is to downshift some land uses decision-making authorities. So the NCZO right now designates three decision-making authorities as supportive supervisors, the highest level, then the planning commission, and then the planning director level. So downshifting a planning commission hearing to a planning director level hearing allows a faster permit processing process because administrative public hearings can be scheduled much more frequently. Whereas the Planning Commission is held monthly and the Board of Supervisors meetings have lengthy agendas with many items from various agencies. Additionally, both the Planning Commission and the Board require in-person attendance of the applicant and their representatives. So some examples of changes to decision-making authority is this is a lumber materials yard. It's allowed in the CPD zone, and it's proposed to change from planning commission to planning director. Meat packing plants are allowed in the M2 and M3 zones. Those are planning commission approved right now and proposed to be downshifted to planning director. And then indoor shooting ranges are allowed in the M1, M2, and M3 zones and are approved by the board, which would be downshifted to the planning commission. So there are a total of four board approved permits that are proposed to be downshifted to planning commission level and 27 planning commission approved permits downshifted to planning director level. The proposed amendments also include providing greater flexibility to existing development standards for detached residential accessory structures. The first item is making detached accessory structures that are 120 square feet or less permit exempt. and as long as they are meeting the objective standards. And this aligns with the building code exemption for structures that are 120 square feet or less. Another change is to the minimum setback distances between structures. Currently a minimum of 6 feet must be maintained between structures and a setback of 10 feet between dwellings. These setbacks are proposed to be reduced to a minimum of 5 feet between all structures including dwellings. The Planning Division may approve a further reduction to the 5 feet if the Building and Safety Division and the Fire Protection District authorize it. The next change is to detach accessory structures in residential zones. Currently, the NCZO allows a maximum of 2,000 square feet gross floor area of agricultural accessory structures and another 2,000 square feet gross floor area of residential accessory structures. With this setup, the applicant must distinguish between agricultural uses or residential uses and stay with those land use confines. To simplify this process and to provide more development flexibility for these two separate land uses in the residential zones, staff proposes to combine the separate 2,000 square foot limits and allow an additional 1,000 square feet for a total of 5,000 square feet gross floor area of detached accessory structures with a ministerial permit. This amendment eliminates the need to differentiate between agriculture and residential uses and would allow them to come in for just a residential accessory permit in the residential zones with a zoning clearance. I'd like to highlight that the additional allowance of 1,000 square feet would not affect the sense of place in the residential zones because the maximum general plan building lot coverage would remain the same for each zone. And there were also existing setback requirements including the requirement that no more than 40% of the rear yard setback be occupied by detached accessory structures. And this would prevent overcrowding of smaller lots. Another process improvement amendment is extending the expiration dates of zoning clearances. It's been staff's experience that project completion timeframes including submitting a complete application for a building permit often exceeds 180 days resulting in the zoning clearance expiring and the applicant having to reapply for a new zoning clearance. To resolve this frequent issue staff proposes to extend the expiration date for zoning clearances from 180 days to 365 days and allowing up to one extension of another 180 days. So this would allow the applicant to submit a complete building package or permit application within one year of the issuance of a zoning clearance or if no building permit is required that they could complete their project within one year. Staff is also proposing to extend the expiration period to inaugurate the uses and structures so when an applicant or a permittee obtains a discretionary permit usually there are prior to conditions and you need to obtain a zoning clearance for construction or use inauguration. Right now the standard is that they have up to one year to obtain their zoning clearance and that is proposed to change to five years from the effective date of the entitlement or according to the length of time in the conditions if it is different, whichever is greater. In addition to that, there will be a one-time administrative extension of up to one year And if the permittee requires additional time beyond that, they would be required to submit a permit modification. Another area where staff proposes to streamline the permit process is for administrative variances. The NCZO includes general variances and administrative variances that allows deviations from development standards such as setbacks, height, and building lot coverage when the strict enforcement deprives a property owner of privileges enjoyed by nearby properties in the same zone. Per state law, there are certain findings that must be made in order to approve a variance. The Planning Commission is the designated hearing body for general variances. There are no proposed changes to the general variance procedures. Staff proposes to amend the process for administrative variances. Currently, the ordinance allows the planning director to grant administrative variances at a public hearing if the variance falls within one of the listed administrative deviations and it meets the administrative findings of approval. So staff proposes to remove the mandatory public hearing and for the planning director public hearing unless someone requests it to be held. So this change requires a new process that would include a public notification of the administrative variance to be sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the project and any interested parties that provides them the opportunity to request a public hearing. This amendment would reduce unnecessary permit processing steps requiring a mandatory public hearing and expedite the approval process for administrative variances. In addition to a more streamlined process for administrative variances, staff has also provided more flexibility and options that fall under an administrative variance. For example, a decrease in setbacks from 20 percent to 25 percent, an increase in building lot coverage and sign area or height from 10 percent to 15 percent, and then additionally new items were added such as a reduction of up to 10 percent of required landscaping and 10 percent in the number of required parking spaces and a decrease of up to 10 percent in minimum lot area or width. The next set of changes affect non-conforming uses and structures and currently in the habitat connectivity and wildlife quarter overlay zone and the critical wildlife habitat passage areas, a structure that is more than 50% destroyed must be rebuilt to current code. So staff proposes to remove the 50% limit and allow partially and completely destroyed structures to be rebuilt in the same location and within the same size without having to meet the current zoning codes. Additionally, staff proposes to allow an additional two years that is from three years to five years to obtain a zoning clearance to submit a complete building permit application for those structures damaged or destroyed in a local, state, or federal declared disaster. And this change aligns with the rebuild standards for nonconforming structures in Article 13 that specifically addresses nonconforming structures. This ordinance includes standards for when a type of entitlement is changed for a certain land use. For example, if a land use was approved by a zoning clearance but is now required to be permitted by a conditional use permit, depending on the type of expansion of the land use, a ministerial or a discretionary permit may be required. So staff clarified the requirements and the triggers for when an expansion of a nonconforming structure would require a ministerial or a discretionary permit. A couple of changes allowed under the minister permit are expanding in addition to a dwelling from 30 square feet to 150 square feet and allowing some reconfiguration of parking lots such as like restriping or changing around the lot, this parking lot. So if the expansion triggers a discretionary permit, staff proposes to add an allowance for deviations for certain development standards like setbacks in height in order to maintain the integrity of a nonconforming building. For practical matters and other situations where it's in the best interest to allow a deviation, then require the nonconforming situation to come into full compliance with the current standards. So this allows nonconforming situations under a discretionary permit and provides property owners an opportunity to be more flexible with their property that has nonconforming uses and structures on it. Additionally, a section was added to Article 13, which is Article 13 addresses nonconforming uses and structures. So to address the CUPs that are proposed to be converted to PD permits, we clarified that they're automatically allowed to continue to operate and that the conditions of approval remain in effect and that the expiration date is no longer applicable. The nonconforming, or I'm sorry, the non-costal zoning ordinance currently includes abandonment of use standards, and those are typically for nonconforming uses and structures. Staff proposes to add a separate abandonment of use standard for existing entitlements that are no longer operating or in use. The proposed standards would allow the planning director to determine a use abandoned if the use has been discontinued for at least five years, and there's evidence of abandonment. So evidence would be when intention of abandonment of use is demonstrated or quote, an act or failure to act showing or implying that the permittee or property owner no longer claims or retains interest in the continuing use. So this new process would require a notification of the planning director's intention to determine the use abandoned, and it would be mailed to the permittee, the property owner, and any occupants of the property advising them that they could request a planning director hearing for them to present their own evidence to the contrary. And if a hearing is not requested, the planning director shall make the final determination. So this new administrative process is an alternative process to the current revocation and termination of use process that is in the ordinance right now, but it must be heard by the Planning Commission. And it also, this, the current ordinance that we have also includes other causes for the determination such as for violations of conditions of approval or if it constitutes a nuisance, whereas this new process is solely for if it's been a discontinued use for at least five years. So this new provision would also address cleaning up long-standing unused properties in the county. And the last amendment involves removing the, last amendment of my presentation involves removing the neighborhood, excuse me, commercial zone, that's a C1 zone, and the commercial office zone from the list of zones in the county. Currently there are no parcels zoned CO and there are 30 parcels zoned C1. And so the C1 parcels are proposed to be rezoned to commercial plan development. the commercial plan development allows for a broader range of commercial uses and provide would provide property owners more development opportunities and economic incentives so the three areas for the rezoning would be the community of somes which is shown in the middle the community of santa suzanna and the North Ventura Avenue plan. So I also want to mention that all of the development standards in the C1 zone are identical to the CPD zone and that the general plan building lot cover percentages are also the same. so the difference between the two zones is that there are a lot of more there are more variety of land uses that can be developed on a cpd zone so um that concludes my portion of the presentation and now i'll turn it over to jessica nguyen for the proposed amendments to the film permit standards thank you

Good morning, Chair Sandlin and members of the Commission. My name is Jessica Nguyen. I'm a senior planner with the Planning Division and I will be presenting to you the proposed updates to the film permit standards in the non-coastal zoning ordinance. The film permit standards were last updated in 1995. In June 2025, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to evaluate and update the film permit standards to better meet the needs of today's film industry. The proposed updates will achieve objectives set by the board, which directed staff to evaluate how we can extend the filming duration, how we can balance filming activities with protecting sensitive resources, and how we can reduce incompatibilities when filming takes place in residential neighborhoods. This is an overview of the proposed updates. We made clarifying text amendments to the sections listed on the left table, and we added new sections listed on the right table to standardize processes and requirements that staff has typically applied to film permits, as well as new provisions that will enhance our film permit program and its enforcement overall. It is important to note that all of the proposed updates are related to the ministerial film permitting process and temporary filming activities. The development of permanent movie studios or movie ranges can still be pursued under the discretionary permit pathway. I am going to focus the rest of my presentation on the major changes to our ministerial film permit standards, starting with the filming duration. Currently, film permits can be issued with or without residential waivers which are neighborhood consent statements signed by residents within a specified radius whenever film productions trigger any of the impacts or activities listed on the right of the screen. Typically, the actual duration of a film permit covers only the number of days requested by the applicant. For film permits without waivers, film productions can have up to 60 days to conduct filming activities every 180 days on a given lot and up to 90 days every 180 days for film permits with waivers. 180 days is approximately six months. Staff proposes to remove the 180-day cap entirely. Film permits without waivers will still be issued up to 60 days as long as the filming activities do not involve or result in the impacts or activities shown on the screen. To accommodate longer film productions, staff is proposing to extend the duration up to 180 days for film permits with waivers and to allow for three extensions in increments of up to 180 days at a time. This brings the total permit duration to 720 days which is approximately two years. The same film permit would also be eligible for a one-time permit renewal which could last up to two more years in 180 day increments. Each extension and the renewal will require new residential waivers. The 180-day increments are intended to align with the requirement to review and inspect temporary film sets pursuant to the building code requirements. In addition, we have refined the existing process to make a planning director's determination for ministerial film permits, which will allow one additional year for a previously approved film permit that has exhausted its extensions or renewal. Alternatively, a film permit applicant may apply for a five-year duration directly for one film permit. A ministerial film permit issued through the planning director's determination will not be eligible for any extensions or renewals. Another major change is the addition of specific film standards. Staff has historically applied many of these standards to film permits even though they are not currently in the ordinance. However, staff proposes that specific standards be included in the ordinance to provide transparency and to strengthen enforcement of permit violations. There are five categories of standards that staff proposes. General requirements suggest removing all related structures when filming is done, handling of trash and animals, and no disturbance or degradation of cultural, historical, or sensitive biological resources. Requirements for filming in residential zones, such as retaining a property manager for three days or more of filming, establishing base camp outside of residential zones, and using traffic control devices to prevent crew parking in unauthorized areas. Vehicles and transportation requirements, such as parking in designated areas, not blocking emergency access or other uses, and identifying shuttle routes where applicable. Other requirements include standards to install noise barriers for power generators compliance with the county noise ordinance and compliance with requirements from other local state and federal agencies. And finally, I will go over requirements to protect sensitive biological resources in the next two slides. Staff proposes two options to protect sensitive biological resources. The first option is for property owners to voluntarily submit a biological report that analyzes potential temporary filming activities if their property is partially or entirely within the habitat connectivity and wildlife corridor overlay zone. The report would be reviewed and approved by the planning director without the need for hearings. If a report is approved, no additional protective measures for sensitive resources would be required for filming on the property. The report will be valid for two years, at which point the property owner can submit a form indicating any changes in the resource or filming activities. The planning director will use the information submitted to determine whether the report could be revalidated or whether an updated or new report should be submitted for a new validation. The second option is mandatory for film productions if the property does not have an approved biological report for temporary filming activities, if the crew size is 100 members or more, and the filming activities are within 200 feet of the habitat connectivity and wildlife corridor overlay zone. If these criteria are met, then temporary wildlife permeable barriers must be used. This could be cones or A-frame signs. Cast and crew must be informed that there are sensitive resources in the area and not to enter or disturb those areas. And a qualified biologist must be on site to monitor activities. The biologist must conduct at least three inspections, preferably during prep, shoot, and strike, submit an inspection schedule to the planning division, and advise the film production to mitigate any potential impacts if sensitive resources are observed. Inspection reports must be submitted, and the planning division will review each report and determine if any violations have occurred. If there are any film permit violations, a new section was added to clarify that violations will be handled in accordance with the enforcement provisions in Article 14 of the zoning ordinance. In addition, staff proposes that the planning director be allowed to issue a 12-month prohibition on film permits on the property if there is at least one final violation related to film or the film permit has been revoked. The 12-month prohibition would be subject to the considerations listed on the screen. The severe penalty serves as a deterrent from committing violations and gives the planning director the ability to better handle egregious film-related violations. Staff engaged with key stakeholder groups during the development of the film ordinance updates. Staff incorporated a recommendation from the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee to include a film permit exemption for free form-style recording that are typical of social media posts. In addition, the proposed updates were developed in coordination with the Building and Safety Division and the Ventura County Fire Protection District to ensure internal processes can be streamlined. Staff also met with film industry representatives and the Ventura County Film Commission to ensure the proposed updates can accommodate the needs of today's film industry. This concludes the highlights to the updated film permit standards. I'm going to hand back the rest of the presentation to Franca.

So the proposed amendments are exempt from the following CEQA guidelines sections. And staff has found that no unusual circumstances or other exceptions that would preclude use of these exemptions. The public noticing requirements have been met, and staff has advertised these proposed amendments in the Ventura County Star and the Vita newspaper. We've notified over 100 interested parties, including 90 film permit stakeholders, and we've also notified all property owners of the proposed zone change. We have received seven written comments that have been made part of the record and five of the public comments are in support of the proposed amendments to the film permit standards and the other letters expressed overall support of the reform efforts and provided suggestions for future amendments. The ordinance requires that the following findings be made for, um, in order to recommend approval of the non coastal zoning ordinance amendments. So all of the required findings can be made and are found in exhibit nine of the staff report. So based on the analysis and the information provided in the staff report and this presentation, staff recommends that your commission take the following recommended actions. And these recommended actions are provided in Section G of the staff report. So this concludes staff's presentation. Planning staff is available for questions. And I'd also like to remind you that the fire marshal and the building official are here if you have any questions about the proposed film permit standards. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions of the staff by the commission? Oh, public comments. I will now open the public hearing. Secretary Luce, do we have any public comments or speakers for this item?

Yes, Chair Sandlin, we do have one in-person and then we do have two in Zoom. So I will go ahead and call the first one, the speaker, the in-person one. It is Luis Lampara.

Good morning, Chair Sandlin, Commissioners, Louise Lampera, Farm Bureau of Ventura County. I first want to say this is exciting. This permit and reform initiative was only adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November of last year. It hasn't been an entire year yet, and yet what's before you today as phase one is a massive overhaul. of the permitting system. And I want to take a moment to recognize that. I can't even imagine the amount of work that went into this, the time, the effort, and I want to specifically thank planning staff. You all received Farm Bureau's comment letter that was submitted a few days ago. Most of our comments focus on how we can build upon this work in phases two and three. So I won't go into details on that from the podium today. But overall, we see real opportunity to lean in and build even more changes, changes that the staff report today recognizes needs to happen in those later phases, particularly realigning the permit process and land use entitlements with actual land use impacts, not just sizes of projects. Phase two and three setting of an objective standards is a must do. And we ask that the commission recommend that staff prioritize developing those. And I do wanna offer that Farm Bureau and the ag community are here and we are willing to engage in that process in any way we can to help. There is one issue that I'd like to ask the commission to reconsider. The proposed language will reduce the ministerial permit threshold for small wholesale nursery facilities from 500 square feet to 400. The stated purpose is to align the non-coastal zoning ordinance with the building code. While that alignment probably makes it easier for staff to explain to customers and permit applicants the entire process, it does lose sight of the fact that the zoning ordinance and land use entitlements must be land use impact based, which is not established in the staff report or in the changed non-coastal zoning ordinance. You don't streamline a system by making part of it harder and more difficult and time consuming to achieve. So we ask that you please leave that square footage as 500 feet. Allow the discrepancy between the zoning ordinance and the building code to exist. Especially while staff complete work on phases two and three to develop even more permit reform to get the system more aligned with addressing actual land use impacts and not only project sizes. Thank you.

Thank you Louise. We now are going to the Zoom speaker. The first one would be Olivia Simonson, followed by Helen McGrath.

Hello, can everybody hear me?

Yes, go ahead, Olivia.

Hi, good morning, everyone. Good morning, Chair Sandlin and commissioners. My name is Olivia Simonson. I am here today on behalf of the Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business or CoLab. I want to echo Louise's comments regarding the progress and effort that has been made on these efforts and her statement of thanks. We are really excited about this. We support the direction of the amendments that are presented today. This package includes practical reforms that should reduce unnecessary cost and delay for property owners and businesses. Converting 255 conditional use permit requirements to plan development permits, moving appropriate decisions to lower level decision makers, and extending the deadline to inaugurate an entitlement from one year to five years are really meaningful improvements. We also support the increased flexibility for detached accessory structures, streamlined nursery permits, broader commercial and industrial uses, and the provisions allowing structures damaged in wildlife quarter overlay zones to be rebuilt in their We have three points that we ask the commission to address as it recommends this package to the board. First, protect existing entitlements. Proposed section 8111-6.3 would allow the planning director to determine that an entitled use has been abandoned after five continuous years of non-use. The draft requires evidence of both an intent to abandon and conduct showing that the owner or permittee no longer claims the right to continue the use. The record should clearly state that non-use alone is insufficient. Temporary inactivity caused by market conditions, disasters, or regulatory delays should not extinguish an entitlement without objective evidence, written findings, notice, and an opportunity to appeal. Second, measure whether the reforms work. We ask the county to return after one year with data on processing times, applicant fees, and the number of permits using the new pathways, appeals, and entitlement extensions. Lastly, CoLab would support the completion of broader outreach before the board hearing. The staff report describes outreach to the film stakeholders, affected C1 property owners, and APAC. Existing CUP holders, organizations representing labor, agriculture, industry, business, and property owners should also review those changes. A concise matrix of the 255 permit conversions, 31 decision-maker changes, and 45 expanded land uses would make that practical. With those clarifications and safeguards, CoLab respectfully supports moving forward with these changes. Thank you all very much. And again, thank you so much for the efforts that have been made in this realm thus far. We look forward to future progress.

Thank you, Olivia. The next speaker is Helen McGrath.

Go ahead, Helen. Good morning. My name is Helen McGrath. I'm a farmer that grows in Fillmore and Somis. I'm the chair cultural roundtable that has been newly formed thanks to funds that the county and the Ventura County Farm Bureau received from the Sustainable Ag Land Conservation Grant through the Department of Conservation. This roundtable hopes to serve as a sounding board and resource not only for the ag community, but county partners as well to address and inform pressing issues that are affecting our ag industry. We would like to express our support and appreciation for this effort, and we are impressed by the work that has been done during this first phase. We also want to let county staff know that as an ag roundtable, we are available to walk through and inform staff throughout this revision process. especially during phase two. We can provide examples of how permitting hinders or enhances our operations. And as evidenced in the Ventura County Crop Report that was just released, Ventura County operations are suffering throughout the county regardless of their scale or commodity. Occasionally making modifications to our properties in order to take advantage of new revenue streams really does help keep family farms afloat. When we encounter barriers in developing new operations or revenue generating activities on our operations, such as installing cold storage facilities, value added operations, or creating farm worker housing, it can be a great hindrance to our business. Our group is facilitated by Maureen McGuire and our Farm Bureau CEO, Luis Lampara. And we would love to work with county staff through phase two, where we can provide key studies of specific examples of where we get bottlenecked in the permitting process and real life examples of permitting successes and challenges. Thank you.

Thank you, Helen. Chair Sandlin, those are the only speakers we have for this project.

Thank you, Luce. Do we have any questions of staff or any of the commenters by the commission? Commissioner Kessley.

Thank you, Chair Sandlin. And first, again, I really would love to commend staff for such an aggressive approach to permit reform. It's really remarkable what you've done. And there was a lot to absorb. I'm going to speak to two different issues. The first one I'd like to speak to is the industrial use expansion. As most of you know, I'm very protective of our industrial zone properties because those properties are what bring living wage jobs. Without living wage jobs, we really can't sustain economic viability into the future. And if we continue to expand into our industrial zone properties with service type industries, we are eating away at what will sustain us into the future. I can speak to this from the properties that I manage which are all industrial and the struggles that we are starting to see with the fact that we're starting to see cities and counties allow for uses that are not industrial. And what happens is then it becomes, we become discriminatory if we choose an industrial use over say a service use. So my caution is that before we start to expand into our industrial zone properties with things that are not industrial-based, we really need to consider what that's going to look like for economic vitality into the future. We cannot just look at today. So I don't really have a question. I just would like to caution us to really consider those before we expand into our industrial with service-oriented businesses. Oh, and I do want to expand on that just one bit more. Office has become pretty obsolete. It's very difficult to rent office space. So it might seem more prudent to look at our office space properties for things like medical and other types of service oriented businesses instead of the industrial zone because there is an abundance of office space availability in our entire county. The second thing I want to speak to, which is a little bit closer to home, is the film ordinance. And I really want to thank our county staff for what they have done, including the people that have helped from the outside, my county supervisor and many others. um where i live in the county is a little bit unique in that we have single lane roads i should say single car roads and there's no accessibility for six families to get in and out of their property except for one access so the things that have really been troubling to us is the impacts that filming has had in our neighborhood mainly the fact that it blocks our access in and out of our property, and it does also impede emergency response people from being able to access us when there's striking and setup going on. But not only that, there's also issues with shuttles and people going down the roads that are single-car roads blocking accessibility for the neighbors. And really, because most of the people in the film production industry don't understand the characteristics of our neighborhood, it becomes problematic for them because they don't even really know how to navigate around in a way that's safe for them and safe for us. Also in the event of a catastrophe such as a fire, it really does start to impede the ability of our neighbors to get out safely. So I am speaking to that because it does actually affect us. So I wanted to ask staff in regards to student filming, is there now going to be a requirement that they also have a permit for doing filming so that they would be under the same requirements?

Thank you, Commissioner Kessley for your question. Staff has historically exempted student films from permits without waivers and we will continue to do that. However, we are going to require student films to get permits with waivers. And so there are certain criteria that they trigger in order to get permits with waivers. And we are going to exempt the permit fees if they do need to get permits with waivers.

So just for clarification, if a student filming production company approaches the county, the county will insist that they get the 50 plus one waiver. And then that would trigger them to make sure that they are going to abide by the conditions of the permit. of the ordinance, I should say.

Correct. They are subject to the 50 plus one threshold for waivers if they do trigger the waiver criteria and then they will be subject to all of the standard requirements. And if they do not trigger the 50 plus one waiver? Then the student film project would be exempt if they do not trigger the waivers.

But would they still have to conform to the rules and regulations that are going to be imposed in the ordinance, the changes?

We would hope that they would comply, but since they would be exempt from a film permit, we would not, I guess, yeah, they would be exempt from the film permit.

CAN WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY ALSO WOULD NEED TO COMPLY BECAUSE JUST LIKE REGULAR FILMING, THEY ALSO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT DOES CREATE THAT SAME LEVEL OF SAFETY AND RISK IF THEY'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY CAN'T BLOCK N STREET?

YEAH, I BELIEVE WE COULD ADD THAT CHANGE. DIRECTOR DAVE?

Chair Sandlin, Commissioner Kessley, we could provide informational guidance fact sheets about the regular regulations that normal film productions go through to keep them apprised of those procedures. Unless we change the code specifically to require a permit, that would be the only assurance other than giving them guidance. But we can do the guidance through our permit coordinators and make sure that we get out the information to them. But if that's the commission's desire and wanting to elevate that, then we would need to make that an actual permit requirement.

And could you create a permit requirement but waive the fee for the students?

You could make a recommendation for that for the board to consider. We are having, normally the planning commission doesn't get involved in the fees, but our package does include some fee schedule adjustments. So you could make that recommendation and we would carry that forward to the board.

The other question I had is, So obviously when there's a lot of activity on private roads, which is again in the area that I live, which again I'm holding out as unique because I don't believe all of the county has the same level of complexities that the Knowles is suffering with filming. So we have a bunch of private roads where all of the stakeholders, the residents are responsible for maintaining the roads. Well, since 2016, one of the neighbors has conducted ongoing filming production at their home. And over that course of time, because of the added cars, trucks, catering trucks, shuttle vans, all of the things that go along with the production of a film or the shoot of the television series, whatever they're doing, that road has suffered severe deterioration where literally there's almost no asphalt left and there's potholes and it's getting worse by the day. If that's a civil matter, But the county allows for the filming. What recourse do the neighbors have to insist upon the resident that's benefiting from this to take care of some of the deterioration problems that are going to continue to go on? And the residents really don't have a recourse other than to try to go after them in civil court.

That sounds like a county council question. I should have looked right at you. I mean, I guess in. Yeah, you're right. I agree. It would be a private civil matter. And so my first question would be if there's a road maintenance agreement or some kind of agreement amongst the private property owners through which they could address that issue, that would be the most obvious solution. And obviously, I can't provide legal advice, but I mean, yeah, the civil cause of action could also be, you know, if there wasn't a provision in such a common road maintenance agreement, then you're looking at a cause of action like overburdening and easement, using the road more than they should be to the detriment of the other property owners. But again, those would be private civil matters.

And I do understand that it's a private matter, but if the county is going to allow the filming and even increase the number of days, where are the residents, where do the residents have some relief? Because obviously then now we have to initiate a lawsuit and go after... the resident that's doing the filming and try to recover and recoup costs to repave the roads when the roads are being deteriorated by what's being allowed on the property. And I'm only asking because I've got neighbors who would like to understand.

chair sandlin commissioner kelsey i think as council barnes has described it really is private matter the distinction of public roads and the film permitting requirements through the public works agency for public roads tries to get at that aspect that you're raising but again that's because it's a public um road so that is really the distinction i don't think staff has anything else we can offer in that regard

Is it possible then to limit the number of days that filming is allowed in an area like ours where it is private road and there's such deterioration?

Well, I think Ms. Nguyen can cover that. We have developed our regulations in the residential neighborhoods. Specifically, a lot of our filming does occur on large properties, which is why our menu of code changes proposed today is trying to provide more oversight for ensuring good film operations and operators. And so that is the change in the code package today. Your commission could consider giving us additional direction. We would need to research certain items unless you had specific code language that you would like us to incorporate.

And then one final issue, I'm just curious why an onsite property manager is required only if the filming is for three days or more?

We did some research on that in regards to just our permit data to come up with the three days. I'll let Jessica speak more specifically to it.

We did take a look at all of the film permits that were issued within residential zones in the past five years and looked at the number of days for those permits. And based on our research, three days seemed a reasonable threshold in order to require a property manager.

So then my question would be, if we're going to go with a one size fits all, then you're not taking into consideration the unique characteristics of the NOLs and the fact that it would be helpful if there was a requirement that they would have to have an on-site manager for all days of filming and not just after the first three because what's the difference? The risk and the issues will happen either day one or day three and day one to three we don't really have someone on site that we could actually go to. And I share this because I want you to understand that this is a serious issue when you are trying to leave your home and you drive up your street and your street is completely blocked and you have to get out of your car, you have to go to the residence, you have to try to find whoever the owners of those vehicles are, you have to wait for them to come and get into their car, and then you have to wait for them to figure out how to navigate so that they can give you access to leave your property. And the same thing happens when you're trying to get to your property. And the same thing would happen if you needed an ambulance or a fire truck. So that's why this is pretty serious to this. And again, I have to say this, it's to this specific area.

I guess we could, I think like Planning Director Dave Ward was saying, if your commission would like us to consider any changes to that provision, we would welcome your recommendations.

Great. Thank you. I truly appreciate it. And again, I just want to thank staff. This has been going on for from since 2016. And this is a huge step in mitigating a lot of the problems that are that the six families are experiencing on a regular basis. So thank you.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER KESLEY ON A LOT OF THE ISSUES AND I'M GOING TO LET MY OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAK BEFORE I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BUT TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER KESLEY'S CONCERNS I DO CONCUR IF THERE IS DAMAGE DUE TO FILMING TO THE ENVIRONMENT, PROPERTY, THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE DAMAGE They're having the benefit of the filming within the county under the county's guidelines. They should also pay the mitigation fees or pay to put those properties back to how they were prior. And I think that there should be some recommendation that we have that that would put the onus on the people that do damage to the environment to people's property to the roads in the county that that they pay that mitigation fee or pay for the maintenance to put the property back to where it was and also concur about the on-site manager day one should also be there too as well. You got to have somebody managing anything going on like that in the county at all times. I think we had a question from Commissioner Boyson, but I have a lot of other questions too as well after my other commissioners speak.

Yes, I just wanted to follow up on the road issue. It seems to me that in the past projects where we've been analyzing expansion of use that part of the analysis involved in granting permits is looking at traffic, looking at if trucks or vehicles damage county roads, what happens in determining whether that use can happen or not. It may not be a payment issue. It may be an issue that, no, you can't do that on your property because it's going to damage off-site roads in the number of traffic, you know, the traffic that's going to use it, the kinds of vehicles that are going to use it. So I think in response to... THE FILMING PERMIT, THERE SHOULD BE SOME LOOK AT TRIPS AND VEHICLES AND WHETHER SOME ANALYSIS ON WHETHER IT BLOCKS EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO THE AREA, WHETHER IT DAMAGES ROADS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THAT USE CAN HAPPEN ON THAT PROPERTY WITH THE LIMITED ACCESS. The other thing I'd like to sort of ask, on the abandonment of use, I was interested in one of the comment speakers questioning how that works when you have use essentially abandoned because of a disaster. And I think it's important to distinguish that disasters and insurance companies take a long time. And so maybe there is an exemption or something for a property that is caught in a declared disaster zone area and abandonment of use is not really brought up. I also agree with Commissioner Kessley on the expansion of uses into office zones. I think that can be part of future phases. I think if you allow expanded uses in office zones you will find that the uses that are expanding into industrial, because there is not any expansion of that use into office, will be lessened. So I think in future phases that should be looked at. There is a lot of office space out there and I've had clients in my business come to me want to use an abandoned office building that's been derelict and even falling down and willing to renovate. And they can't get it. The use isn't allowed in the zone. And I see a lot of, excuse me, a lot of dilapidated buildings that can be reused in a better sense if that's allowed. I understand the C1 to CPD allows for more uses. I just question, and maybe it's a question, but I think the CPD process is more than if you had a C1 use. Is it not? Or are there any additional steps in a CPD for use that is allowed?

No. The entitlement process for the variety of uses is the same. There's no process or land use category that's being removed. As it relates to the office comment, we're getting rid of the commercial office zone. There are no properties zoned commercial office. What we're doing is consolidating all the general plan commercially land use designated properties as CPD. This is being driven as is the changes to expanding the allowed uses in the commercial and industrial areas by property management companies, property owners and tenants who are looking for places to move in. And we we went through as we said in the in the presentation and categorized the various uses one by one and looked at them and we realized and i haven't been realizing this since i started here there are very similar um land uses that are called something different and are the same activities occurring and it's allowed in one zone and it's not allowed in the other so that was one of the principal reasons why we expanded uses similar to the office was allowed all the way across with a conditional use permit. What we did was we looked at the indoor aspect of an office park and the modern situation that's occurring in places like Market Street in Ventura County, or excuse me, in the city of Ventura. And we said, well, the laboratories that are only occurring in the commercial zone in our zone are also in the industrial parks. And I've been finding by taking my mother there frequently, that's most of the laboratories in Oxnard, Ventura, they're in the light industrial solar and other locations I can point out in Simi Valley, the same thing. So what we came from a practical approach of 16 years working at the counter, 20 years for Franca, of the experiences the property owners told us of what they were having difficulty in moving people in. And in Santa Susana, Knowles is a specific area where there have been difficulties for them to find tenants. And it's the property owners, and I could name them individually, but I won't. um who've begged to have additional uses and be treated like the cpd zone and commissioner boydston and commissioner kesley we promised to look at the land use complexity use that that could occur in the commercial zone and make that more interesting i am looking forward to that opportunity with more study and maybe adding mixed use in some commercial, but to the point that we're talking about today as it relates to the office use, we recognize that and I think that it's embedded in our changes to recognize more opportunity rather than less for property owners and business people who are trying to move into the unincorporated areas versus you know, differentiating a type of office, it just didn't seem to make sense to us. And so that's what the decisions were based on, not necessarily expanding land uses, but looking at equivalent ones that were already there. And that's why this time it's, we realized also, if you study the county's zoning history, we made a lot of changes in the 1960s to 1964, specifically in 65. where we adopted new ordinances and we actually adopted the CO and C1, but I don't think we ever rezoned any property CO. I think it was a vision of the county at the time that commercial, we were still gonna have sky rises and other things, and it was an artifact, right? So the CO zone is being completely removed. In addition to that, the C1 zone was more limited. And so that was, like I said, something that we've been working on all along is to make things easier for tenants to move in and out of tenant spaces by articulating objective standards as was discussed by CoLab earlier today. And, um, we have been working on this concept and we'll continue to work on this concept to main change of uses and existing tenant spaces, more fluid, um, having worked at the city of Oxnard and knowing that most commercial spaces, it's pretty guaranteed. You can move in and out if you're a type of use rather than have to study in an old land use entitlement from 1964. So, um, we are making those sort of practical changes as well, based on experience.

Very complete answer, thank you. I had a last question. I jotted something down and I don't remember what it was related to, but maybe you can enlighten me. I have a note here that you're changing from three years to five years for dedicated disasters or declared disasters. I remember when we looked at length of time for disasters and we had quite a quite a discussion on it and I think we ended up going five years to 10 years or something just because of how long it takes for the wheel to sort of turn. What's your reaction to something like that?

Well, thank you for asking that and then it reminds me and I apologize I didn't hit on this point earlier about the abandonment of use in this concept of rebuilding after disaster. So the exemption that we built into this is specific to the wildlife corridor and very specific to structures that were damaged by a fire within a specific location. From the study that we've done, there's very few, if any, of these structures exist. But this gives them an ability to build back in a longer period of time. The provisions that you were talking about that we extended periods of time for before were for the ability to live in an RV. And there was points of what we are allowed extension understanding that it takes a long time to rebuild. And so that was related to living in an RV for temporary housing. not related to reconstruction. The abandonment of use thing, this is something that we train our staff for as it relates to someone working holistically towards accomplishment. The findings for the abandonment of use that the planning director would need to make would take into consideration the effort of that property owner. And we would reach out well ahead of time before that. So it's already built into it. But putting the provision that this doesn't necessarily apply to natural disasters or destroyed by a natural disaster, we could easily put that into the ordinance. But I wanted to let you know that we already felt like it was integrated in it in the findings that would be necessary.

Thank you. I, too, thought we had extended time for people like in the Thomas Fire to rebuild. I thought that was part of it, too, as well, as far as my recollection. Any other questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Ayala?

She wants to go last. A question. Well, I agree with Louisa from the Farm Bureau. I don't agree with reducing that structure from 500 to 400. I don't think that makes sense. If anything, let's take the building code from 400 up to 500. Or 1,000.

I don't know why it's not 1,000.

Yeah. But I don't like that. One question I do have, and I've had people come to me and say it just takes too long to go through process and to get something done. And but what they're coming up with is do we have a process when someone puts in an application or goes to the counter the first time, is there a tracking mechanism that goes through the whole process for that person? So that we can look at their, okay, they came in on January 1st and we told them, hey, here's what you need to do and here's the timeline in 30 days. Is there something that we have a program that pops up and says, hey, we haven't been back to that person? And I think that's where the one lady in here that we got the letter this morning said that, you know, she said she'd get back to in seven days or 14 days or whatever it was, but she hasn't heard back in a month. Is there a way to process that through? Because it just seems like are people coming in and starting a process and they're getting lost? So that's my first question.

And to clarify on that, do we have any statistical data from the county how long those applications, how many applications that are submitted go beyond the 30 days required by state law?

Chair Sandlin, Commissioner Cushing, couple questions there that you've raised. As far as our engagement with the public through the counter operations, which includes both email, personal visits, phone calls, Of course, our online portal of people filing things is 24-7. So in the middle of the night, people can be filing applications. Our process of follow-up includes quite a few resources that we use within the staff. The staff is coordinating together in regards to the one letter that you received. We did respond back to the individual. We explained that we were researching the request of information, and that was actually provided yesterday. So... People aren't lost in the system as far as responses. We are tracking, we're following up in regards to the question of actual permit time. How long does it take to get through a process? The ministerial versus discretionary are two different paths. So when you're describing the 30-day review, It's typically for discretionary, albeit for ADU accessory dwelling units regulations, complying with state that has its own limitations of how many days in which to process. And we work very closely with the building division because most of that is through a direct building permit path. But we have the data that will explain how long things are taking to get through the process. Film permits, for example, often are processing within a couple days to a week. We have zone clearances that can be processed within a day or two. We have others that require some more review. It's still ministerial, but we have to show that we've met the objective standards. some of which are within community plans that have to be verified. So there are some steps for us to issue that zone clearance. There often may be corrections. So while someone is filing an application in the middle of the night directly into the portal, then we're receiving that. We're receiving payment, we're reviewing their application materials, and oftentimes there's an exchange of emails and phone calls back and forth to narrow in if there's something missing in the application process. So once we get everything that we need, the processing of that actually goes fairly quickly. But it does engage a lot of back and forth. the time when people were coming in just to the counter and you could address that right then and there is what we lost during covid when we didn't have that opportunities but then we had to pivot and create online ways in which to engage with the public so it actually takes longer when you're doing the emails back and forth or phone calls than when we were able to just directly correct hey wait we're missing a detail right there at the counter and so we do that as best we can to move projects forward um additional on to that the um we outsource our building um plan approvals correct

Right? When someone puts a building permit in, well, I'll ask you that question.

Well, thank you, Commissioners and Vice Chair Cushing. So I want to add to Dave's response to the last question, but I'll first address the question on outsourcing. Most of our building plan check is done in-house. We do have outside consultants that can help us when we have very heavy backlogs and we don't, we like to try to keep it in-house. It's just an easier process to manage and we've also been, We've also had the advantage of having nearly full staffing in the building and safety division, so we're able to handle more things in house and that's our preference.

Okay, because the concern that the client had that came and talked to me was that they put the plans in, it went out to the consultant, the consultant had corrections or notifications, but they couldn't go back to the consultant directly to clarify what those conditions or changes were supposed to be. They had to go back to staff and then staff had to go back. And they said it just seemed like it took extra days to do that process.

That is correct. There's that added layer of project management when you have an outside consultant, and that's why we try to keep those in-house. And that's true not just for the building and safety plan check review. It's also true for things like grading permit review and soils report review that Public Works is doing, which can take multiple iterations.

Is there a way to establish that when the applicant has a question to the third party, they can make it a three-way conversation out of it, that they don't have to, there's not that delay going back and forth?

All these suggestions are great, and we're trying in many, many different facets to improve our customers' experience. So, you know, these were not, what's before you today are some changes to the, are some very substantial changes to the zoning code. But we're also looking very carefully at our processes and how we communicate not only with the applicants, but across the different county agencies so that we're trying to really compress down the time frames required for getting from an initial submittal to an approval.

Yeah. Well, the other comment I want to make, I think this is fantastic. I mean, the county is going in the right direction. It just when we hear feedback, we'll bring it to you to staff that when there's an issue.

Right. So, Mr. Chair, if I may address or just add on to Dave's response from the prior question. So, we are tracking the metrics. We're working closely with the CEO's office on tracking the metrics, how long each type of permit is taking. And the reason we're doing that is we want to collect the data now so that we can see as we implement these process improvements how the customers experience and how our timelines are improving. So, we have a permit tracking system through Acela primarily for most of the development applications. All of the departments that are involved in the development review process use that within the county organization. And it's an opportunity for us to include notes. We can have reminders. We can have automatic emails generated saying, hey, we haven't gotten back to this customer in 30 days. It's time to follow up with them. That is a key component of the permit reform efforts. Estelle Busa, who's in the audience here, has a real lead role on this. And she'll say that it's not just our rules and regulations. It's our training of our people and how we're improving customer service. It's the platforms, the software packages that we use. and it's in our interagency communications across agencies to be efficient. So we do have the ability to track those metrics. We do have the ability to add notes to the file from all different reviewers, whether it's a planner or a building and safety plan checker or a fire department or a public works reviewer that has components to that. So we can all put that information into the Acela permit tracking and share that information across the agencies. And we're really starting to take more advantage to that. And one of the big improvements that we've made just in this last year is pretty substantial redo of how we handle building permits and how we push that information out to the different agencies called the agency clearance task that Ruben Barrera, who's in the audience, our building official, and his team have really taken the lead on. So we're really utilizing the Acela platform a lot more efficiently and effectively now than we have in the past. And we're going to continue to look at how we can make improvements to that.

Well, that's great. That's great news. Thank you.

You've done a great job and your staff on this package and I'm just want to commend you and your staff for Doing a great job moving this for this something the county's needed for many many decades So that's glad you guys are getting a good start And definitely we've got room to grow on this and and keep improving and I appreciate you guys keeping the metrics Which is good We'd love to see some of the metrics, you know, if possible, and just kind of understand how we can all work together with staff, with you, to see what's going on in those metrics to help maybe continue to improve on some of these processes and help these people through the process. That would be great.

Yeah, this has been a really great start. And Dave's comments in the beginning about how it really was an all hands effort, not just in the resource management agency, but with cooperation from other departments to look at how we can make these improvements. We are really encouraged by what we've been able to do so far. I was quite impressed with the scope and the volume of the changes we were able to bring forward at this point in the process, and we look forward to the future phases where we're going to be bringing forth additional changes and improvements.

Nice, thank you so much. I had one more question. Commissioner Woodson?

Well, we have you up there.

You're on target.

We approve these amendments, you know, this phase. How do you go about determining whether they're working or they're not working?

Well, as Winston mentioned, this is, you know, a lot of these ideas came from staff. You know, where were the sticky points with the applicants? Where were the challenges for staff? So we have a lot of institutional knowledge on what things need to be fixed. And we're going to continue to look at opportunities. You know, these are the packages that we could deliver in the first year. And the subsequent packages may require environmental review. There may be more involved there. One of our next big shifts is going to be looking at what discretionary planning permit applications we can downshift to ministerial and include some development standards which will really compress the timeframe for applicants. So that's going to be a major component of the next couple phases that are coming before the Commission and the Board.

So it seems to me that In looking at phases that have already been approved, when you're looking at workload for future phases, it might have as a task amending anything that wasn't working that we just did. That's true. That might be something to put into that work effort.

Yeah, this is a big step forward and we're gonna find opportunities for improvements even with this group of amendments that we're making and we'll have the opportunity to come back through the process with additional refinements.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Director Mullane? No. Gary. Commissioner Allen.

I do have one more comment. Yes. When Olivia Simonson from COLAB was talking about abandonment properties, was she talking about farm?

I DON'T THINK ANY NONCONFORMING OR PROPERTY.

BUT I THINK SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FARMING INDUSTRY. LOUISA, CAN YOU MAKE?

IS OLIVIA STILL ON? YEAH.

BECAUSE COMING FROM COLAB, I WAS WONDERING IF SHE WAS MAKING MORE COMMENTS ABOUT PROPERTY THAT WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, BUILDINGS THAT WERE NOT BEING USED ON A FARM. about the abandonment and I don't know, I just had a comment about that.

I think Vice Chair Cushing, I think she was talking about that provision in the proposed amendments and just speaking to potential refinements of that.

Okay. Just abandonment general. Commissioner Cushing, if I may. Again, Winston Wright. The abandonment would only relate to discretionary permits. So anything that existed without a discretionary permit wouldn't be abandoned. It's just an existing use. So it would only be related to something that had been issued in an entitlement in the past.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for Director Mullaney while we got them up here? Commissioner Allen?

I do have a question, two questions, but I think they are more directed toward planning staff. So if I may very quickly, not to belabor the point about the earlier questions around the film permit, however, I was just wondering whether there's any current kind of assessments to impacts to infrastructure through that permitting process and whether we could potentially recommend some mitigation requirements as, you know, in addition to that.

Chair Sandlin, Commissioner Ayala, we're still within the film discussion, right? So what we presented today is focused on the ministerial. So ministerial doesn't allow you to add discretionary conditions, infrastructure impacts. It's not embedded into the code for ministerial discretionary, and that still is retained in the film regulations. Someone could seek a conditional use permit. That then would be looking at things of infrastructure and things for the term of whatever they're seeking in that regard. So similar to Commissioner Kessley's, we have some levels of limitation. Your commission could give some guidance on which components you're feeling potentially as a commission aren't addressing enough or a very specific component, which if you have more specific component, we might be able to take a brief recess and help you if you give us the guidance on what you're thinking specifically in the code or is it more here are a range of concerns that we feel still aren't addressed in the film category and whether those could be provided to the board for consideration and maybe focus in on phase two The reason why I'm giving you that option is because some of this requires research and other information that we can't bring into your discussion today. But if there's more specifics, some of which we already covered non-film related, we can summarize that for you when you're ready in regards to your motion and make sure which pieces that we could do just directly. And then you could have a broader range of recommendations for both the staff and the board to consider.

Understood. Thank you. And then lastly, I was just wondering related to some of the public comments earlier, whether there's any plans or intention of planning staff to conduct additional stakeholder engagement in the following phases, especially related to the establishment of those objective standards.

Yes, Commissioner, we will be doing more engagement where we did do the APAC through this process. We also had quite a few film industry individuals involved in talking through issues and us going over concepts that then found their way into the actual ordinance language. In regards to the roundtable, I actually just had communications with Maureen McGuire just the other day. and we're scheduled to go to them in October 8th is our date we're aiming for. Mostly as I understand it and I think we heard from Ms. McGrath and her comments about phases two and beyond and what other aspects are we gonna be looking at and how can they provide a voice into part of their perspectives on the ground for the agricultural needs and how we can fend that into changes in our code. So yes, we will be doing more outreach.

Thank you for that.

Any other questions by the Commission? I have a couple questions and statement. I definitely want to reiterate what I said to Director Mullane, commending staff for taking this overhaul seriously and moving it forward as the supervisors directed. We truly appreciate you guys and all the hard work and effort that it took to get to this point. Appreciate staff making that challenge and taking it on. On a couple questions in regards to something making it more restrictive was what Commissioner Cushing brought up and I believe this came from the Farm Bureau. The nursery is going from 500 to 400. Why would we make it more restrictive and why is it not 1,000?

Winston Wright again, thank you. The reason why we suggested going from five to four was for building code issues. There's a lot of challenges in the open space in the agricultural areas that we're accepting of the concept of going to 500 and leaving it the way it is. It was driven by the need for ADA, fire access, building code upgrades that are difficult to achieve and so at the counter explaining to people the things that they need to do. Though I do see the distinct difference between an ag sales facility where you're selling fruit and a nursery. And if a property owner were to go through the appropriate processes to get a building permit, we acknowledge that that is something that we don't need to change. We just wanted to highlight that it's difficult. But it has been done and I would recognize that it's possible to put in, say, like a commercial coach or something and bring it up to the appropriate standards. And I don't want to deny the property owners as far as taking up to 1,000 square feet. We were very cautious to introduce any uses into the open space zone that could be considered SOAR. And we were trying to, we could look at that at phase two. But the idea was try to make things simpler and easier to explain to folks from experience. And that's why we went from 500 to 400, not to be more restrictive. But we do understand that we don't necessarily need to do that. And the point of the 1,000 square feet thing is, again, out of caution and discussion from the various, including the agricultural community about what would be appropriate. And maybe it's 1,500 square feet.

Yeah, I was just thinking, you know, if it's outdoor, it's nurseries, it's trees, it's growing in the open space, it's a plantation, it's to help the environment produce more trees and flowers and stuff in the environment. I just don't understand the limitations we would give to that. Even in open space, it seems like open space we want to grow that has much stuff going on as far as the nature and the environment and

I do want to add that this 400 square feet is in addition to the 20,000 square foot provision for ag accessory structures, barns, storage buildings and the like, and then another 20,000 square feet for principal structures, greenhouses, packing plants and the like. So we're not changing at this point the ministerial standards. We were just trying to address a service problem that we have in the county with the lack of good roads, water, sewer we don't have those resources and so what we're finding is people who are interested in doing this spending a lot of time and money and not being able to accomplish it so it was really out of compassion for people that we've had experiences in the counter but we understand and we don't we don't feel like it is appropriate to restrict it any further at this point we just was trying to be helpful in the in this process and recognize things that we've encountered at the counter

great um so maybe look at that phase two about the uh if it's feasible to um expand a thousand the or 1500 as you suggested um and then colab had some recommendations uh too as well i i believe we should adopt all three of their recommendations that they had um that they had that brought forth um And is there a way to include that in the text if the commissioners do so agree, the three recommendations that they had? I'm sorry, Chair Sandlin. Which three are you talking about? The opportunity for the non-use. I can't read my notes here. But processing time and then I just put collab recommendations because they sounded good when they explained them.

What I had just from my own notes, this was also from Ms. Simonson, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So in my notes, again, not perfect, but I had there were three issues. One was the discussion on the abandonment of use and making sure understanding how that would work. I think Mr. Wright described that we're only talking discretionary, not all uses. And so that might have answered Ms. Simonson's concern on that point about abandonment. and then there was the question about having a metric of successes how well are these code changes making a difference track that or how could we do that and then the third one was seeking more outreach before the board hearing and then going forward just in general for phase two so those were the three yes i think those were all three the recognition the one uh on abandonment um

non-use is not enough evidence is what i had you helped me recollect that non-use is not enough evidence because of market conditions and things like that i think that we should uh include that that non-use of something is not enough evidence to be able to go down the path of uh taking a right away from a property because of abandonment

I think, Chair Sandlin, we might already have it. Why don't you read right from the code.

So under the abandonment of use section, section 8111-6.3, and it's C, a determination by the planning director that a use has been abandoned, terminated, and not authorized to continue requires both. evidence of an intention to abandon the use so someone's efforts like trying to get a building permit after a fire so it has to be clear and these are things like that have been not probably in use for five years but for 50. so i just want to be clear that this isn't necessarily come up frequently but it is something and if i may i'm not sure if council will allow me to provide a specific example that's fine petrochem on ventura avenue had been abandoned and there was a determination in a letter without a hearing that that occurred and we were allowed to do the proceed with the cleanup of that contaminated site that's an example what that this process could be used where there was an entitlement issued for instance in the 1940s that had been continued and modified to the point where it was no longer needed or necessary and didn't have the appropriate services for modern processing to continue. So it had been discontinued for decades and it had become a nuisance and a public problem and a safety issue, so that would be an example. So going back to an evidence of intention to abandon use, that has to be articulated in the planning director's decision, and those types of factors would be considered. An act or failure to act showing or implying that permitting your property no longer claims or retains an interest in continuing the use. This also is assuring that we're going to be reaching out and talking to the property owners and there's evidence that they no longer have interest in this activity or use or building. And there's also, of course, this is, as Franca indicated in the presentation, there is a notice to the property owner, any permittee of record. And so if we, you know, let's just say this was an entitlement issue to a company that no longer existed, we had no contact there that that we would still send it to any kind of occupants to the property. So we added that part of it to make sure that anybody might be involved in this property were well aware of its this action and their ability to question the need for a hearing first of all, and then their appeal rights to your body. So remain.

So that there requires two actions, which is evidence somebody applying for a building permit or a planning director determination that it's no longer being used.

Someone applying for a building permit would be direct cause for us to understand that they were interested in proceeding with this type of use. So that would be one of the things that we could consider and say, yeah, of course, you're not trying to abandon this use. One example I can use, is in Silver Strand Beach, there's a bar that everybody likes to go to, but it's snug up against houses in the RBH zone, which is the highest residential density in its existence. But this bar had existed post-World War II, part of the base experience, go down and have a beer at the beach, right? So property owners weren't too keen on people coming along, and they complained to ABC. ABC shuts them down for a period of time. The neighbors send us a letter and say, hey, we got them 180 days. They're closed. There's a provision in the nonconforming section that says they should no longer exist. That is unenforceable and very difficult to enforce without a revocation process. And if you don't have an entitlement, it's nearly impossible. You'd have to probably go to civil or sort of some sort of administrative process that outside of the land use to try to shut the business down like that didn't have a license like this particular bar did and so we recognized of course that they were working on their abc license and we let them and we acknowledged that that was not abandoned and we didn't go through any process to try to go away that may not have made the property owners happy next door but it was in a business zone and it was an existing business so that could be an example of where we recognize THAT IS SOMETHING BEING SHUTTERED DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT HAS BEEN CLOSED. ONE OTHER EXAMPLE I CAN PROVIDE FOR THE OHIO VENTURA AVENUE WOULD BE THE OLD GAS LAMP BUSINESS WHICH IS NOW WAS SHUTTERED FOR PROBABLY 15 YEARS AND THEY CAME IN AND THEY WANTED TO SPLIT IT INTO VARIOUS USES AND IT HAD BEEN SHUTTERED. THAT ABANDONED PROVISION HAD BEEN It said, hey, you know, if you tear this down and build it something else or you add on to it, then that would be a PD permit or a modification of the entitlement. It's not. We didn't allow it. It would be a new permit. We wouldn't let them modify something that had been shut down and basically damaged and never used for 15 years.

Let's see. On to my next couple questions I had here. We have a change of conditional use permit to PD, but are you guys looking at also current PDs? I mean, we have a conditional use permit to plan development permits, but are you guys also looking at plan development permits to just changes of uses as well in your phases?

Chair Sandlin, we're looking at shifting from PDs down to ministerial permits and establishing the objective standards that go along with that across the range of uses so it isn't creating a new use. I may be misinterpreting what you're saying, but it will definitely be the shifting down from discretionary approvals to ministerial. That's definitely a big component of phase two. That's why some might get into environmental review, which is why we put that in phase two, because that's a whole other review exercise and analysis that we have to do to bring that package to you and the board.

Commissioner Sandlin if I may also please. Like I mentioned earlier about the change in use process by changing buildings from a CUP to a PD permit and the previous changes that we've made to the ministerial modification, we added that as a process and specifically, the tenant change right so for the property management groups or the property owners the flexibility of moving people in and out with a ministerial entitlement or at the worst case scenario in some cases well i'm not going to say worst case scenario but a scenario where you could do a permanent adjustment like a letter approval like update conditions of approval or how someone should operate rather than going through a whole discretionary process so this discretionary to ministerial is being effectuated by this action, I think, and facilitated in those sort of actions where someone just wants to move into an existing space.

Yeah, we wanna be able to help businesses that come to Ventura County be able to start shopping and create those living wage jobs as Commissioner Kessley had notated. So we're hoping that that is part of the process as we move forward, being able to look at what we can do to maximize our spaces here to be able to create those jobs. That's hopefully really important moving forward into phase two and three of this. I think that's really what drives a lot of this, especially with the current state of the economy right now. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF BY THE COMMISSION OR ANY OF THE SPEAKERS? SEEING NONE.

OK, circling back, I just wanted to confirm that there could be some specific recommendations that we can make. And I'm going to circle to the film permit issue. There were a couple of issues for me. Student permits requiring a permit. An on-site manager starting on day one. And if there is a way to require that a road, even if it's public or private property, is maintained before there's an approval of a permit or there is some sort of proof that a road is going to be maintained and taken care of.

Chair Sandlin, Commissioner Kessley, staff also shared with me, thinking about some of your earlier comments, as well as other commissioners on the road, there was one staff suggestion of possibly requiring for private roads the waiver requirement. Right now we have certain aspects of the proposed film production that meet certain standards. Oh, that means you need to have a waiver. you could propose that private roads any production on top of private road needs the waiver process so that'd be one more elevation with the concern about private roads we would we know in the county where our private roads are so that is something that could be implemented that way What do you get out of that? You would get at least more of the neighbors involved in that particular segment and location. So if that's something that you want to consider, that's more discreet and direct right into the code, as well as your recommendation. So I'm not saying in lieu of that, but you could do that as part of the option. um the student permit subject to a permit there was discussion without fee is that what you would seek without fee okay any So if I may, the other items that we talked about, and I'll look to Franca and Winston if I don't quite get this right. But in your very large packet of exhibit three, the code changes. This is page 18. And this is the use matrix table. This is the one where we have the wholesale nurseries for propagation. So we would change this to the 500. standard we had some more illustrative text where it says small facilities a building with sales facilities up to 400 that would now strike and go back to 500 and that shows in two places on that same page 18. then for the abandonment for does that i'll let you cover that you're better than me on that one thank you so for the steering two

So Winston Wright, thank you, Commissioners. Abandonment of use, there was a suggestion to add an exemption related to disaster and my suggestion would be to add that to Section 811-1-6.3b. After that provides, it would be something along the lines of except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter and in an active, or in an active entitlement regarding abandonment of a use, the planning director may deem a use authorized by an entitlement abandoned, terminated, and not authorized to continue if the use has been discontinued for a continuous period of five years. This provision does not apply to properties damaged by natural fires or uses of structures by natural disasters, something along those lines. I ask that you don't ask me to put the specific words right now, but the concept would be in that particular section.

And then this would be more of your recommend potentially just on your recommendations bucket was staff's consideration for phase two and beyond looking at that expansion of uses and office zones. Then there was the encouragement of the metrics of successes. directly related to the changes in these ordinance amendments and how to show that for everyone. And I think those are the ones that I had. So two direct edits into the code package, including one about the waiver for private roads which we'll have to write up. That's why I'm not being specific about those three direct edits into the code. And then the recommendation items are about the phase two and on future work, looking at the office expansion of uses in office zones. Um, more encouraging additional outreach and then the metrics of successes.

Specifically, I think it was, and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Kessley, is any damage that's done to the roads and the environment or anything like that should be mitigated and put back whole to where it was prior to any of the filming taking place. Is that correct? Damage. That's what we want to make sure is in there so that they could be held to some kind of standard for the work they do. I THINK THOSE ARE ISSUES.

I THINK THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT COULD BE PART OF THE ANALYSIS IN A WAIVER SITUATION.

THAT WE COULD UPDATE IN THE PROCESSES THAT YOU GUYS, FOR PROCESSING THOSE PERMITS.

AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THE TWO OTHER ITEMS, THE STUDENT PERMIT REQUIREMENT AND ALSO THE ON-SITE PROPERTY MANAGER ON DAY ONE. starting day month.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yeah, the only thing I might add is the three to the five year expansion for declared disasters, I think it should be more than five years. Even 10 would be fine, yeah.

Are you familiar with that section?

I think in any disaster you need more than five years.

Yeah, with an ability to renew after every five year period.

Commissioner Sandlin, Commissioner Boydston, Kessley, the exception for five years was specific to loss of structures within that if they were to apply for a permit those extensions that are built into the entitlement provision apply as well so this is just in order for someone if they decide not to act move forward we just caution that too far forward 15 years just to the 15 did get criticism from the board for related to living in an RV for 15 years they felt as though it was appropriate not to have that and they didn't feel they wanted to send it back to the Planning Commission but I just want to make you aware of that. It was from Supervisor Parvin specifically and that was echoed by other board members. However, in this case, five is a time we've settled on. If there's a suggestion we can consider it and bring it forward to the board. This is a process to renew. I suggest at least 10.

Yeah, 10 years. 10 years, yeah.

Okay. I know it's limited, but.

I concur. Any other changes, suggestions, corrections to the staff

One question to that. Okay, so you're saying that they're doing a processing to rebuild. We're going to give them up to five years, and now we want to give them to ten years?

Is that what you're... Commissioner Cushing, I just want to clarify, I want to make sure that the board commissioners understand this is specific to structures that are within the wildlife corridor crossing only. so it's not in general we're blanket 10 years more to build it's just the proposal currently before the planning commission relates to a specific provision and a specific section of article 7 related to specific structures so i just want to make sure that that's clear it's not an overall time extension for prior .

No, that's clear to me. I guess my impression in the business is any rebuilding after a natural disaster typically takes more than five years.

We had the Thomas fire come through and there's still people to this day, this is almost 10 years, that are still rebuilding or haven't even started yet rebuilding.

But I think what Winston is saying is this only applies to the wildlife corridor?

There could be structures in the wildlife corridor that, like let's say the Thomas Fire, if that was in the wildlife corridor, those structures there, they're still not structures that are built almost 10 years later.

commissioners sandlin commissioners commissioners in general commissioners period that provision five years is also in the non in the non-conforming section so we're making it consistent with another section the five-year provisions already into structures lost and we extended this at the thomas fire from 180 days to five years So the nonconforming section was updated based on that disaster response and understanding it was going to take a long time for folks to get rebuilt into that. So we built that. That's just to come in the door to start the permit process, not necessarily because if they were to come in four and four and a half months and they were in the process, we would say that they're in the door and they're not going to have to go away. Then the entitlement process that we're adding onto here is a full five years to have or a year for the zoning clearance from 180 days and an ability to extend it as well and that building that zoning clearance is good as long as you've submitted to a to building and safety so you could have a project will be seen in the system because of outside forces of the county someone's dragging on a process that's alive for seven seven to eight years

as if they submitted i think commissioner boyce and i remember our previous conversation is let's say the people uh didn't have the money to rebuild or the insurance money to rebuild and new property owner takes over invests in that property on the vision of wanting to restore what was on that property i think a 10-year period is appropriate as mr boyce in the suggestion

Yeah, I think what I'm finding, or at least what I found in my business, is that a lot of property owners won't even start the process until the insurance money is settled. And insurance companies have been moving very slowly in doing that. And so five years, in my estimation, isn't enough to settle insurance claims these days in when we get into how big these disasters are and how many properties are affected. It effectively, the bigger the disaster, the slower the insurance companies work. So I, you know, In order to move faster, you're asking people out of pocket to pay architects, pay engineers, pay contractors to clear sites when they don't have any money at all. So giving them more time, I think, hurts no one and helps the property owner.

So while the code was only specific to the wildlife corridors, what I'm hearing from you and the commission is it's more of a broad issue. So for us, consistency within the code sections, the recommendation is for 10 years.

I concur with that. Bringing them all up, I think that that's something that we need to push to the supervisors that we'd like all rebuilding standards to go to 10 years at a minimum.

I'd like to ask a clarifying question if that's okay. Yes, Michelle. So I'm just wondering if that five-year limit determination was made due to considerations for that habitat connectivity and wildlife corridor impacts. Just curious if that kind of plays any role in that term limit.

The wildlife corridor regulations as an overlay didn't address, it didn't allow for rebuilding within the 200 foot component of the wildlife corridor. I had had engagements actually with some in the community about that concern and these were actually farm worker houses as well as regular primary residences and it was through those discussions that this was my direction to make that change to greater flexibility in the concept of housing overall that we're trying to achieve. I didn't want to burden, I didn't recommend burdening that more in the wildlife corridor. So that's how that came about.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments for the staff? I think we've given our recommendations as a commission.

I WOULD GO ON WITH LET'S DO THE FIVE YEARS NOW AND THEN IN PHASE TWO BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU HAVE TO GO TO OTHER CODES TO MAKE THEM CONSISTENT, CORRECT?

NO, I'M SORRY. I MEANT JUST WITHIN THE ZONING CODE. SO WHILE WE WERE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE PLACE FOR CONSISTENCY IN THE NON-CONFORMING SECTION, WE WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEN YEARS IN BOTH. RIGHT. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE STAFF? I think give staff about five, 10 minute recess to put the language together if you need it, or if you're ready to go, we can.

I have it, but I'm happy to also do that if you'd like. Again, we have kind of two buckets, the very strategic code changes that we talked about, and then we have a bit of a longer list in the recommendations, but however you would like to pursue.

I'LL TAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION IF YOU NEED TIME OR IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT THEM NOW AND WE CAN CREATE A MOTION. COMMISSIONER BOYCE HAS A QUESTION.

I'D SAY WE GIVE THEM SOME TIME. I'D LIKE TO SEE IT UP ON THE SCREEN SO THAT IT'S CLEAR TO US AND IT'S TRANSPARENT TO EVERYBODY OUT THERE WATCHING.

THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

TEN MINUTES.

TEN MINUTES. TEN MINUTES RECESS, PLUS PEOPLE HAVE TO MOVE THEIR CARS, I THINK.

MOVE THEIR CARS, YES.

Can you get me to the Word version of Exhibit 5 so we can go back? section. So we don't have access to that room back there, do we? Any more? We don't have access to that room?

I'm not sure.

Do we have access to that room? I think we should sit there. So we're all... Luz, do you need to open up that conference room back there? Okay. Come back there. Okay.

Okay, sorry. Thank you for the time. This took a little bit of time to do this, but all right. So this is the motion. We believe that you would be considering direct code changes. This includes addressing the 400 to retain the 500 square feet. Shows up in two sections of the matrix, use matrix. Then we talked about the property manager for film permits. So what this does is it just says for temporary filming activities. So there's no day duration at all. So that's struck. Then for the exemption, this is where we had the student filming being addressed. So that is removed. From this, sorry, I can't get the cursor to, that's removed, that whole, sorry. How do I open it to the whole screen? I don't know how to do that. I'm sorry. This also means we would address the fee component of that, but that's not part of the zoning, it'll be the fee schedule. So we would carry that forward to the board. Under this section here would be adding in the temporary filming activities do not include the use of private roads or private access easements. So that means you're triggering to do a waiver. That's how that works in that section of the code. And then for the topic on the abandonment discussion, section D there changes from five to 10 years. And then we also John Potter, Do it again here under other code section five to 10 years and just to be safe staff will look at article 13 and the other sections that might have that five to 10 years for consistency. And here's where we address the comment in regards to this provision does not apply as a result of a local state or federal declared disaster. And then finally is our bucket of just, or would be your bucket of just general recommendations during phases two and beyond reform packages consider the following, study expansion of uses where offices are allowed, create a metric for evaluation of the new code amendments to determine successes or where additional regulation adjustments may be necessary, conduct more outreach to stakeholders.

You guys are collecting data now, am I correct, as far as metrics that you guys discussed, the metrics that you guys are currently collecting?

We have metrics on permits. But this question, I think if I understood it, was more about how are these changes in the codes resulting in what we were desiring for the actual uses, not necessarily directly in how much time is it taking to process a permit. We do have that data already. but this was more about the code changes that we're making.

I think the reason I bring that up is because I think overall, this is the specific code changes, but there's going to be multiple phases of code changes in the overall goal is to for an applicant that comes to the planning department and how timely that is and how successful they are with being able to process their applications through the planning staff I think If we go by each phase metrics on each phase, I think we need to also consider the overall goal of the supervisors which is making the process So yes, one on these current, but also like to see the current stats on processing applications in general, as the supervisors had made these recommendations to make things easier, streamline, for applicants, so we wanna see.

Charles, like the result, like a quarterly report that would give us the results of what's been going on in the planning and building department kind of thing?

Yeah, and overall, these changes should improve those, right? I believe that that's what should happen, right? the overall statistics should improve of the planning department based upon these changes. And so we'd like to see what are the current overall statistics, and then we can measure them as Gary suggested, maybe on a quarterly basis, to see how the data, the timing and things like that are improving within the planning department.

But with a focus on processing, meaning timelines, right? Yes. OKAY. AND THEN...

IF I MAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT AROUND THE TRACKING AND THE TIME. MY NAME IS ESTELLE BUSA. I HAVE THE HONOR OF SERVING AS YOUR ECONOMIC VITALITY AND SERVICE EXCELLENCE MANAGER IN THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE. AS DIRECTOR MULLAIN STATED EARLIER, WE ARE DOING A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ALL OF OUR PERMIT REFORMS, WHICH INCLUDES OUR POLICIES, WHICH YOU ARE SEEING HERE TODAY AND FOR OUR PHASE ONE. WE ARE ALSO REVIEWING OUR HOW OUR FOLKS ARE TRAINED AND HOW THEY'RE INTERACTING WITH OUR COMMUNITY AND THOSE THAT ARE COMING THROUGH OUR PROCESSES AND OUR PLATFORM AND OUR TECHNOLOGY WORK. THIS IS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE EXERCISE TO GO THROUGH. WE ARE PLANNING TO COME BACK AND IT WAS A DIRECTIVE OF THE BOARD FROM THE NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING TO PROVIDE DASHBOARDING AND DATA ANALYTICS AND METRICS TO BE COMING forward through not only to our leadership but to the public as well so that's actively work that we are engaging on it is very significant it's a lot when we got into this work it we we thought we were looking at maybe just one system one platform we thought we we were collecting all this data but how it's organized in the back end is as a whole other story and that's what we're uncovering That's what we're going through and uncovering right now. So our intention is absolutely to have data and analytics to bring back forth not only to this commission, to our board and to the public. I just want to set expectations on time and in realities. We're going to be getting getting to this phase of being able to do that. it's likely going to be sometime in 2027 just given the amount of work that's required to get the data in a place that allows us to pull the types of reports and the analytics that we want to bring back to this board which would include things like how long applicants take different various stages along the planning process and building process and our entire permitting process looking at the various types of permits. So it's definitely within our purview of our work that we're doing. I just want to just share that and make sure that we're setting expectations because we will certainly be driving with data driven decisions. But it's a lot of work to get there as we look at the back end of our data. So I just want to share that as we're making the recommendations. It's a great recommendation.

So you're saying 2027? Correct. January 1st?

That's right around the corner.

Quite extensively right now we are going through all of our data fields, every field that has been ever created in our Acela system. Yes, all of our departments use Acela. Some of us are using it differently. And so we're going through that right now. We're doing an assessment of how our tools are being used. what data is being captured, how it's being captured, how it's being linked together, the different types of tables. I could bore you with all of the data that we're going through, but it's very extensive and it's going to take some time for us to get it organized and get it into place. where we can be doing the proper analysis to bring back. So I anticipate us having drafts of reports. We've already started wireframing what those reports would look like. Now it's on us to be cleaning up the data and building the right tables in the back end and doing all of that work. I'm anticipating we'll have drafts in early spring of 2027, provided we could we don't have any new things come up that we go, OK, now we've got to figure out this piece with the data, but likely having something more operational towards the end of 2027.

Sounds good. Yeah, if you can bring us an update of what we have now as far as data in the system that you guys have been tracking at least to this point.

So we have data. We have all of the data. But having it pulled together and what is currently how the data is linked together, the story that it's telling, that's the thing that we're missing. And so we can pull various reports. We can do one-off reports. Absolutely. We've been doing that now. We have audit reports. Our team runs to ensure. I think one of the questions earlier was, hey, how are we ensuring to make sure that these applicants aren't getting stuck? Like, have they met their 30 days? And we have various audit reports that we can generate that we talk with our staff about to say, hey, gang, hey, we got to make sure that we're tracking these. And we can do those one-off. What we want to do is operationalize that. So it's standardized. So it's something that can be done a lot more fluidly, a lot more flexibly, and then with a lot more information and detail. So it's not that the data's not there.

Are you guys using AI at all? And when will we see a lot more AI within the planning department to help make these decisions?

well yes we are using ai we are we are utilizing tools in terms of how we we look at the approaches that we're taking with our data validating certain data fields ultimately we always want to make sure we have a human eye on that because it is a very extensive data set and so we we use it to help support and and look at look at how we want to go about this work though we we we have a We're putting a lot of human eyes and hands on this to make sure that it is done accurately. We don't want to have any hallucinations in using AI with that type of work.

And I was just thinking about the city of the county of Los Angeles, city of Los Angeles using AI for their permitting processes as well. So that's hopefully we can see that within the county of Ventura being able to have an application be submitted to AI and have it feedback for the person. So that helps speed up the time even more than the human process that we currently have now that we're tracking.

absolutely and we are looking into to various systems um as you you know the the advancement of ai is rapidly it rapidly changes every quarter about that it seems as some more tools are coming online and we're evaluating those because we do see opportunity and value like that where other communities throughout the state and country are applying that to their permitting process great uh commissioner boyson

Yes, so from my standpoint, I'd be interested in knowing what data sort of a listing that you're looking at. I know the linkages need to be put together, but having a list of what you're looking at from a would be valuable, I think, to us to see. and not to tell you, but to see and give opinion maybe on expanding the list. Have you thought about this? Have you thought about that? Glad I think we could be helpful.

I'd be glad to share with the commission as we continue to develop the various views that we want to provide to the public and our leadership around our permitting process. And we are we are creating our wireframe. So that's something that I can work with staff on to provide more input.

Yeah, and then lastly, I think having a chapter specifically on these phased amendments and how they're working or not working is important.

Yes, we are tracking the changes that we are making as well as just ongoing management of permits.

So that could inform future phases.

Correct.

Absolutely.

Yeah. I concur with Commissioner Boyce's comments.

Thank you for letting me interrupt during the motion. Thank you.

So I added one more item, number five, that was a discussion study ministerial permit for large nursery, larger than 500 square feet. THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION, WHY NOT 1,000, WHY NOT 1,500. THIS WOULD BE ONE OTHER ITEM RELATED TO PHASE 2 OR BEYOND REFORM PACKAGES.

DID YOU WANT TO INCLUDE COMMISSIONER VOITZ'S LAST REQUEST UNDER LIKE A OR A B UNDER THE PERMIT STATISTICS JUST A LIST OF THE YOU SAID THE A list of the type of reports, right? Commissioner Boyson, list of data being considered. That's the language that he suggested.

Okay. That work? Okay. So that could potentially be your motion as seen on the screen and the direct edits that I showed previously.

I'm willing to make the motion to approve all of the recommendations that have been put before us on the screen from staff. And I really thank you guys for all the hard work.

We have a motion from Commissioner Casselly.

I will second that.

We have a second from Commissioner Ayala. Secretary Luce, would you like to take roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Boydston?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair Sandlin?

Yes. That passes five to zero. Item number seven, the next item is a report from Planning Director Ward on board actions and other matters.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Sadland. I don't have any reportable items from the board. So just looking ahead on your calendar, we do have a hearing scheduled for October 15th, and this would include three items. We have a variance for a proposed entry sign at Villanova Prepper School, which is located in District 1. 12096 North Ventura Avenue in Ojai. We have a conditional use permit for the operation of Camp Gilga This is also in District 1, 2464 East Ohio Avenue in Ohio. And then we have an appeal of planning violation PV260010 issued for unauthorized addition of an approximately 10-foot light pole and luminary affixed to two pedestrian hybrid beacons. And this relates to a Caltrans project, District 2 along Highway 1. So those are the three items. So I'll have a busy agenda for October 15.

Commissioner Boyston?

I just want to let you know I'm out of town on that date. Okay. Thank you. If that changes anything. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Ward. I'm now going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Great comments from everybody. Great recommendation.