[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6318272,"mediaKeyId","2367702-f67cd1b7a8fd3977dcfd8e7da001994f","parentId",2367702,"title","Planning commission deadlocks on Highway 126 RV project modification; applicant may appeal","audioSeconds",6532,"startMs",6068000,"endMs",12600000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2367702-f67cd1b7a8fd3977dcfd8e7da001994f&start=6068&end=12600","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2367702-f67cd1b7a8fd3977dcfd8e7da001994f/thumbnail_6068000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6318272/Fillmore-City/Ventura-County/California/Planning-commission-deadlocks-on-Highway-126-RV-project-modification-applicant-may-appeal","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6318272-89796ceffb6d6180bdf242f810427576/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182595&Signature=O~3FZ6Zav93wyGCN7nAr8Anzsj7UM7E6Zac1CTLYhOzTapVXBOhUp41IYJwHL10GYBM09nd6z76lI5ciNixpyHBHjgFG6jbw8U-gn4lN8YtCDuoklanRAmO-CvM7fmpCGdADCXhE54pPoiIjLjp7m6kv7r28tvVnrpVa0q5EMWV5zbDQBUlKCXv-PEntnGgvcO4RAAiEKeCfUSkMQURAqK8e-yOfYei7e~kiHaTrACf-uT4UFzgbylD~Z0d2mdEY784HvHkuNBYGQ9ePEBsNoy7ceYBeKtp5ZfOldkyv6P3GImDJ-OrUxVZvfysI1reTUn23MB1TSzHBOuaQ3gN~NQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Fillmore CA","date","2025-02-20T18:58:21Z","article","The Fillmore Planning Commission was unable to reach a majority decision on Modification No. 4 to Development Permit 18-02 / Conditional Use Permit 18-02 — a proposed change to the Highway 126 RV sales, service and storage project — leaving the matter unresolved and opening the door for the applicant to appeal to the City Council.

Owner Don Duncan and his design and engineering team presented the modification that would shift the permitted retail/showroom building from one pad to another on the 11-acre site next to State Route 126. City staff recommended denial of Modification No. 4, arguing the revision effectively reduces the project’s retail component and increases the amount of RV storage and surface parking in a commercial-highway zone. Planning staff also noted that earlier administrative changes and time extensions had produced a complex entitlement history.

At the hearing, Duncan said the swap (making Building A optional and building B primary) is intended to consolidate all RV operations (sales, service and storage) in one area and leave the prime street-front pad available for future retail that he believes will better serve Fillmore. “If you don’t approve this and I build Building A, there will be no future retail because I’m not gonna have people drive past and into the center of my RV operations to get their car washed or what have you,” Duncan said. Architect Mark Pettit and civil engineer Scott Yuls described the building designs, fencing and stormwater work; Yuls noted site utilities are largely in place and said timing for paving is sensitive to the project schedule.

Commissioners asked for clearer visual materials showing the proposed site with the RVs, buildings, fencing and landscaping visible from the public right of way; several commissioners said the project as currently approved reads primarily as an expanse of paved RV storage and does not present an appropriate gateway for the city. Concerns included the project’s reduced landscape coverage (staff reported a current landscape coverage near 8% versus a 12% standard), the height and visibility of security fencing, and whether the approved plans still guarantee a meaningful retail or vendor presence on the street-facing pad.

Staff recommended denial of Modification No. 4 on the ground that the retail component has been removed from the entitlement; the planning commission first took a vote on the staff recommendation and the motion failed to pass by the commission (a 2-2 tie). Commissioners then attempted a motion directing staff to return with a resolution approving Modification No. 4 and updated conditions; that motion also failed. With no majority to deny or approve, the item concluded without planning-commission approval. Planning staff noted that, as a result of the deadlock, the applicant may appeal the commission’s non-decision to the City Council.

Among technical clarifications recorded at the hearing: the site currently contains an installed retaining wall and Building C (constructed under an earlier modification); the site has provisions for stormwater treatment, infiltration areas and service connections to both pads; and the previously adopted conditional condition (P13) requires the sales component before certificate of occupancy for certain elements. Staff also said the Business Park Master Plan EIR covers some development in the area and that new building construction could still trigger project-level CEQA review depending on the scope.

Next steps: Because the commission did not adopt staff’s denial and did not approve the modification, the applicant can either appeal to the City Council or pursue additional submittals to address commissioners’ concerns (visual renderings, cross-sections showing RV scale relative to landscaping and proposed gateway treatments, and revised landscape plans to approach the 12% standard). Staff said it can return with revised recommended conditions if the commission directs it to do so; the commission did not reach that direction by majority vote.

Why this matters: The 11-acre project sits at Fillmore’s western entry and commissioners emphasized its role in shaping first impressions of the city; the dispute hinges on balancing permitted RV-storage uses with the commercial-highway zone’s intent to encourage retail and street-facing activity.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fillmore Planning Commission - 2/19/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The commission was split 2-2 on a requested modification to an approved Highway 126 RV sales/service/storage project (Modification 4). Staff had recommended denying the modification; commissioners and the applicant debated landscaping, retail components and visual impacts at the city’s entry.","taxTitle","Fillmore City, Ventura County, California","taxId",71920,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6318277,"Fillmore planning panel backs ordinance to allow delivery-only medical cannabis businesses in Business Park zone",262,4431000,4693000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2367702-f67cd1b7a8fd3977dcfd8e7da001994f&start=4431&end=4693","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2367702-f67cd1b7a8fd3977dcfd8e7da001994f/thumbnail_4431000.jpg","/articles/6318277/Fillmore-City/Ventura-County/California/Fillmore-planning-panel-backs-ordinance-to-allow-delivery-only-medical-cannabis-businesses-in-Business-Park-zone","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6318277-a894dd00d67650a4ec878b69fa94a74d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182595&Signature=gD6S3lYePg0hILI-GVcuJprEwBuDfd5kb70F0mCYqzrN8WMEQJTsOAP4VIf~8bkqGVRPUcogyBbCLkiJZa8E8~QrErRwdS3xdStaqUzFOn0PP0A7I0v0JrEDsDrc4ulpkFCwBdRJ6jGjP-y3uZSj~KSKNMI7MqoK0tFtTrw2E-kbX7pYhQgzE~APbd1tDVzCXLTeZa06V28iBS2QMh~6yd6wFeJGJJc6A3MyhXyt-TAobIKkj~ACtxqkoGYMuljEtGxWUDdB6Qv76EmoSRiYBMc2RStx0lef23jdJnpJ20olpFBTaWJWlGSoaTtl0Kr134i--mAqPPbs~O4fbt6ExA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fillmore Planning Commission on March 5, 2025 opened a public hearing and voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a zoning ordinance amendment and related municipal code changes to allow non-storefront medical cannabis retail and delivery operations in the city’s Business Park (BP) zone.

City planner Brian McCarthy told the commission the change is necessary because Senate Bill 1186 made it unlawful for cities to outright ban medical cannabis sales or deliveries, and the proposed ordinance confines new medical-cannabis delivery and non-storefront retail to Fillmore’s BP zone while prohibiting on-site customer sales. “Senate Bill 1186…made it so cities cannot prohibit sales of medical marijuana or deliveries of medical marijuana,” McCarthy said, and staff drafted code text to allow delivery-only operations in enclosed, secure buildings and to require an operations plan and conditional-use permit for each applicant.

The planning staff framed the proposal as a narrowly tailored response to state law: the draft code adds definitions, design and operational standards, a conditional-use permit requirement, and a 600-foot separation standard from public parks, religious institutions, day-care facilities, schools and other hemp/cannabis facilities. Staff also proposed a video-surveillance requirement. McCarthy said the city previously adopted urgency ordinances to delay SB 1186’s effect locally while a permanent local ordinance was developed; the current stay the council extended runs through Dec. 11, 2025, he told the commission.

The commission’s discussion focused on compatibility, evidence of secondary impacts, and the scale of the Business Park. Commissioners asked whether any empirical data shows increased crime or other negative secondary effects around delivery-only, non-storefront medical facilities. McCarthy said he had sought input from the sheriff’s office and reviewed operations in nearby jurisdictions and that he found “no data to suggest that crime is higher surrounding these types of facilities,” but he explained land-use choices are typically driven by compatibility concerns such as traffic, parking and hours of operation. He added the Business Park was chosen because it already hosts industrial and storage-type operations and offers access and separation from schools and daytime child-care activity.

Two residents spoke during public comment. Annette Sula, a Fillmore resident of more than 40 years, opposed the change, saying the city is small and neighboring towns can serve patients: “I do not think that this is in the best interest of our community,” she said. Diane Sutton said she understood the limits on local authority but asked why medical cannabis is not handled through pharmacies and asked for more detail about the item’s legal and policy backing.

After public comment, a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation passed on a roll-call vote. The record shows the motion carried and the commission forwarded Resolution No. 205-1052 recommending the City Council adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 24-01 and Ordinance No. 205-976 to amend the municipal code to allow non-storefront medical cannabis retailers in the BP zone and delivery as required by state law; the record lists the action as approved by the commission. Staff noted any future CUP or building permit for a facility would be subject to the city’s operational and CEQA review and to the conditions spelled out in the adopted code.

The City Council will receive the planning commission’s recommendation and consider the ordinance and municipal-code amendments at a later public meeting; staff reminded the commission that applicants will still need a conditional-use permit and operational plan and that new construction or a project inconsistent with the Business Park Master Plan could trigger additional CEQA review.

Votes at a glance: the planning commission recorded a majority vote in favor of recommending council adoption; staff recorded the action as approved and forwarded to city council for final decision.

Why this matters: the change implements a state requirement while allowing Fillmore to limit retail activity to a zone staff judged compatible with deliveries and warehousing operations. The ordinance is written to require security and operational plans and to keep on-site sales prohibited, so any commercial operation would be deliveries only and subject to CUP conditions.

Next steps: the item will be placed on the City Council agenda for final consideration. Any operator seeking to open in Fillmore would subsequently apply for a CUP and demonstrate compliance with the new municipal-code requirements and with any CEQA obligations if a new building or other discretionary change triggers review.","The Fillmore Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt zoning and municipal code changes to allow non-storefront medical cannabis retailers and delivery operations in the Business Park zone, following a staff presentation about state law changes and a public hearing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission deadlocks on Highway 126 RV project modification; applicant may appeal

Fillmore planning panel backs ordinance to allow delivery-only medical cannabis businesses in Business Park zone