Meeting Summary
Present: Gilman, Lang, Rule, Whitman, Mang
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Joint Meeting Protocol and Planning Overview
- Staff established meeting protocols and presented recurring planning themes requiring Council direction.
- Key topics included the lack of Westside design guidelines, state-mandated objective standards, and parking impacts.
- Urgency was emphasized for fire hardening efforts following recent fires and new hazard maps.
- Current noise standards address property edges, though fringe area protections were considered.
Objective Design Standards and Affordable Housing
- Staff clarified that objective, quantifiable standards apply specifically to affordable multifamily and mixed-use projects.
- State law mandates that the City prove a requested variance is unnecessary before denying incentives for affordable units.
- Council explored creating specific objective standards for the Ojai Avenue corridor to maintain a cohesive aesthetic.
- Discussion confirmed that "viability" refers strictly to the necessity of variances for affordable unit pricing.
Parking Requirements and Walkability
- State law dictates parking standards for affordable housing, while the City retains discretion for other project types.
- Participants debated the tension between creating a walkable community and the necessity of parking in a semi-rural area.
- The group acknowledged that current "no parking" requirements based on dense urban centers may not apply to Ojai.
- A need for a broader community conversation on parking and circulation was identified.
Traffic and Safety Commission
- Staff noted that similar commissions in other jurisdictions combine public works and police functions to address street safety.
- The scope of such a commission could potentially include parking responsibilities.
- Establishing the commission would require an ordinance to amend the city code.
- The Commission agreed to revisit the topic to potentially establish a Transportation or Traffic and Safety Commission.
General Design Guidelines and Urban Form
- The Commission reviewed the need for design guidelines for the West End corridor transitioning from rural to downtown character.
- Debate occurred over enforcing a specific Mission Revival style versus focusing on urban form elements like setbacks.
- Concerns were raised about future development clashing with existing structures without clearly defined standards.
- Options included creating distinct guidelines for different corridor segments or extending downtown guidelines.
Request for Proposals (RFP) for Design and Parking
- Staff proposed an RFP to engage a third-party consultant for developing design guidelines and addressing parking gaps.
- The scope would include analyzing current code and proposing solutions for circulation and tourism management.
- Discussion focused on whether to proceed with the RFP immediately or after finalizing goals and priorities.
- The RFP could align with the potential creation of a traffic or parking commission.
Fire Hardening and Utility Undergrounding
- Staff outlined a phased approach for fire hardening, identifying utility undergrounding as a long-term, high-cost project.
- Rule 20 funding from the CPUC offers up to 100% funding for undergrounding but requires investor-owned utilities.
- Challenges cited include high costs, the need for private property owner cooperation, and eminent domain complexities.
- The Commission acknowledged undergrounding as a priority despite the complex, long-term nature of the undertaking.
Action Items and Next Steps
- Staff will capture discussion points regarding the Traffic/Safety Commission and the proposed RFP.
- Research will be conducted on feasibility and funding options for utility undergrounding, including Rule 20 eligibility.
- Staff will map existing fire hardening provisions in building and planning codes to identify areas for strengthening.
- The Commission will reconvene to further discuss the RFP, design guidelines, and fire hardening strategies.
Full summary
Agenda Item: Approval of Agenda
- A motion was made to approve the agenda. No objections were raised, and the agenda was approved.
Agenda Item: Joint Meeting Protocol and Overview of Planning Topics
- The City Clerk and staff established the protocol for the joint meeting, agreeing to proceed with a brief introduction of topics, followed by public comment and discussion. Staff presented an overview of recurring planning themes requiring Council direction:
- Design Guidelines: Staff noted existing guidelines for the Downtown and Eastside areas but identified a lack of specific guidelines for the Westside. Community feedback indicated a preference for a Mission Revival style, which is not currently codified.
- Objective Design Standards: Staff explained that state Housing Element requirements mandate objective, measurable standards for multifamily and mixed-use affordable housing projects to allow for ministerial processing. While state law dictates density and parking thresholds, local control remains over design elements such as building height, facade materials, and setbacks.
- Parking: Staff referenced studies suggesting downtown parking issues are often related to pedestrian access rather than a lack of spaces. The discussion highlighted parking impacts related to tourism and underserved areas.
- Fire Hardening: Staff emphasized the urgency of fire hardening following recent fires and the release of new high-fire hazard maps, noting the Firewise Communities program as a potential avenue for engagement.
- Noise: Staff noted that noise issues frequently arise during project reviews. Current standards address property edges, though the Commission has considered extending protections to fringe areas.
Agenda Item: Public Comment
- Public comments were received on the following topics:
- Design and Infrastructure: A commenter noted the lack of sidewalks and bike lanes near the Bryant Street Circle and suggested improvements to support businesses.
- Parking: Commenters expressed a need for better public parking, specifically in the Libby Bowl area, and suggested the potential for a multi-story structure. One commenter proposed forming a parking commission to vet options, noting that approximately 50 existing spaces could be returned to service. Another commenter advocated for eliminating parking minimums to reduce costs for affordable housing, decrease traffic, and promote walking and biking, citing Minneapolis as an example.
- Fire Hardening: Commenters urged the City to enforce defensible space requirements for all structures, not just new ones, citing the California Fire Code. Suggestions included adopting Ventura County Fire Standard 515 and supporting the Fire Safe Council's grant efforts. One commenter criticized the City's approach as repetitive and called for tangible, on-the-ground assistance.
- General Policy: A commenter outlined goals for the Community Development Department, including affordable housing promotion and environmental protection, linking these to the elimination of parking mandates.
Agenda Item: Discussion on Objective Design Standards and Affordable Housing
- The Council and staff engaged in a detailed discussion regarding the development of objective design standards for affordable housing projects.
- Scope and Application: Staff clarified that objective design standards apply specifically to multifamily and mixed-use projects qualifying as affordable housing. These standards must be quantifiable (e.g., specific heights, materials, colors) to allow developers to self-assess compliance without subjective review.
- State Law Constraints: Staff explained that state law sets minimum thresholds for affordable housing that trigger density bonuses and the ability to request incentives, waivers, or concessions. These state mandates can override local standards regarding height, density, and parking.
- Incentives, Waivers, and Concessions: The discussion focused on the City's ability to deny requests for increased height or density. Staff noted that the burden of proof lies with the City to demonstrate that a requested incentive is not necessary to make the affordable units viable. The City cannot review a developer's financial pro forma but must assess whether the requested variance is mathematically necessary to achieve affordable housing goals.
- Ojai Avenue Corridor: Council members inquired about creating specific objective standards for the Ojai Avenue corridor to maintain a cohesive aesthetic, such as Mission style. Staff confirmed that different standards can be written for different areas, provided they remain objective and quantifiable.
- Height and Baselines: The group discussed the current height limit of 35 feet (approximately two stories). Council members explored the concept of "reverse engineering" the baseline height to limit the potential for waivers, though it was noted that lowering the baseline to one story would be restrictive and potentially difficult to justify.
- Viability: Staff clarified that "viability" in this context refers to the necessity of a variance to lower the price of affordable units, not the overall financial viability of the entire project. The City must show that a requested variance is not required to achieve the affordable housing component.
- No formal motions were made, seconded, or voted upon regarding the substantive planning topics during this portion of the meeting.
Agenda Item: Objective Design Standards and Parking Requirements
- The Planning Commission discussed the development of objective design standards for the "fast lane" review process, emphasizing the need to include specific features to prevent undesirable development outcomes. Staff clarified that state law dictates parking standards for affordable housing projects, allowing local standards to be lower but not higher than state requirements. For non-affordable housing and commercial projects, the city retains discretion. Discussion ensued regarding the tension between creating a walkable, bikeable community and the necessity of parking in a semi-rural area where amenities are not within walking distance. Participants debated whether current "no parking" requirements, based on studies of dense urban centers, are applicable to Ojai. The group acknowledged the need for a community conversation on these issues.
Agenda Item: Traffic and Safety Commission
- The concept of establishing a Traffic and Safety Commission was discussed. Staff noted that in other jurisdictions, such commissions often combine public works and police functions to address issues impacting pedestrian right-of-way and street safety. The idea of including parking within the scope of this commission was raised. It was determined that creating such a commission would require an ordinance to amend the city code. The Commission agreed to revisit this topic to potentially establish a Transportation Commission or a Traffic and Safety Commission with parking responsibilities.
Agenda Item: General Design Guidelines and Urban Form
- The Commission reviewed the need for design guidelines for the "West End" corridor, defined roughly from the Y intersection to downtown (Signal Street). Participants discussed the transition from the rural character of the West End to the denser, Mission Revival style of downtown. There was debate over whether to enforce a specific architectural style (such as Mission Revival) or to focus on "urban form" elements like building setbacks, street frontage, and parking placement to create a cohesive town feel. Concerns were raised about the current mix of styles and the potential for future development to clash with existing structures if standards are not clearly defined. The discussion included the possibility of creating distinct guidelines for different segments of the corridor or extending downtown guidelines further.
Agenda Item: Request for Proposals (RFP) for Design and Parking
- Staff proposed issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to engage a third-party consultant to assist in developing design guidelines and addressing parking issues. The scope of the RFP would include analyzing current code, identifying parking gaps, and proposing solutions for circulation and tourism management. The Commission discussed whether to proceed with the RFP immediately or after finalizing goals and priorities. It was noted that the RFP could align with the potential creation of a traffic or parking commission.
Agenda Item: Fire Hardening and Utility Undergrounding
- The Commission addressed fire hardening and the undergrounding of utilities. Staff outlined a short-term, medium-term, and long-term approach, with undergrounding identified as a long-term, high-cost project. Discussion focused on Rule 20 funding from the CPUC, which provides up to 100% funding for undergrounding projects involving investor-owned utilities like Southern California Edison. Staff clarified that the city currently has no funds in its Rule 20 account and that municipal utilities do not qualify for these specific funds. Participants debated the feasibility of creating a municipal utility district to manage undergrounding versus partnering with the existing utility provider. Challenges cited included the high cost per mile, the need for private property owner cooperation, and the complexity of eminent domain processes for municipalization. The Commission acknowledged that while undergrounding is a priority, it is a complex, long-term undertaking.
Agenda Item: Action Items and Next Steps
- The Commission agreed to continue the work on these topics in a future meeting. Specific action items included:
- Staff to capture the discussion points regarding the Traffic/Safety Commission and the RFP.
- Staff to research the feasibility and funding options for utility undergrounding, including Rule 20 eligibility and potential partnerships with Southern California Edison.
- Staff to map existing fire hardening provisions in the building code (Title IX) and planning codes to identify areas for potential strengthening.
- The Commission will reconvene to further discuss the RFP, design guidelines, and fire hardening strategies.
- No formal motions were moved, seconded, or voted upon during this segment of the meeting.
Agenda Item: Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence
- This portion of the meeting consisted solely of the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. No agenda items were discussed, moved, seconded, or decided, and there were no motions or votes to report.