Meeting Summary
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
Zoning Code Review (Title 10, Use Charts, and Definitions)
- Staff identified inconsistencies between use charts and definitions, prompting a need for further research on animal keeping, guest houses, and mobile home designations.
- Commissioners debated requiring Conditional Use Permits for crop production in residential zones to better regulate noise and pesticide use.
- Discussion highlighted the need to clarify definitions for exotic animals and roosters, as current regulations lack specific waste management or space requirements.
- The Commission explored removing the CUP requirement for guest houses while weighing concerns about illegal conversions against arguments for permitted-by-right status.
Mobile Homes and Recreational Vehicles
- Staff clarified that state law mandates mobile homes be permitted in at least one residential zone, currently restricted to R1 for units on chassis.
- The distinction between mobile homes on permanent foundations (permitted in all residential zones) and those on chassis was reviewed against HUD standards.
Daycare Facilities and Growth Management
- An overlap in definitions for "large" and "small" family daycare homes was noted, requiring further research into state law parameters.
- Staff confirmed that references to the city's growth management plan in use tables are currently unenforceable due to state law restrictions.
M1 (Light Industrial) Zone Regulations
- Members questioned why retail uses like gun shops and pet stores are permitted by right, suggesting they should require a CUP to preserve land for manufacturing.
- The impact of the 500-foot setback rule was debated given that much of the zone is adjacent to residential areas.
- Suggestions were made to allow outdoor dining in the M1 zone via a Conditional Use Permit rather than maintaining a total prohibition.
VMU (Village Mixed Use) Zone Regulations
- The presence of single-family dwellings as a permitted use was debated, with some members arguing for a CUP requirement to align with mixed-use intent.
- A proposal to require CUPs for all VMU uses was raised, though members noted that certain uses like art galleries should remain permitted by right.
C1 (Commercial) Zone Regulations
- The Commission suggested that theaters should be permitted by right in the C1 zone, subject to design review, rather than being restricted.
- Staff agreed to investigate the feasibility of allowing zero-lot-line buildings in specific areas where existing structures have zero setbacks.
Open Space Zone and Definitions
- Staff clarified that home occupations in Open Space zones are tied to farmworker housing provisions and that existing single-family homes may be legal non-conforming.
- It was agreed that staff would prioritize approximately 30–40 undefined uses in the code for future updates.
Upcoming Meeting Scheduling
- The item for 242 East Ojai Avenue requires verification of Historic Preservation Commission vetting before being confirmed for the January 21 meeting.
- The 102 North Signal Street item is confirmed for January 21 following its scheduled HPC review the preceding night.
- Staff noted that the DRP/CUP for 302 L Paseo Road may not be ready for the upcoming January 21 meeting.
Director's Report
- Staff reminded the Commission of the two-step review process for Director's Exemptions and encouraged members to review recent exemption documents.
Full summary
Call to Order and Roll Call
- The Ojai Planning Commission meeting was called to order on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. Roll call confirmed the presence of Chair Murphy, Vice-Chair Chesley, and Commissioner Rice-Schmidt. Commissioner Graham was absent. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, and no additions or changes to the agenda were requested.
Public Communications
- No members of the public were present or online to speak on general matters during the public communications segment.
Consent Items: Approval of Minutes
- The minutes from the regular meeting held on December 3 were presented for approval. A motion was made to approve the minutes as submitted, and the motion was seconded. Following a roll call vote, the motion was approved.
Discussion Item: Zoning Code Review (Title 10, Use Charts, and Definitions)
- The Commission engaged in a detailed discussion regarding Title 10 of the Municipal Code, focusing on allowed uses, permit requirements, and definitions across residential, commercial, manufacturing, and special-purpose zoning districts. Staff presented background information highlighting inconsistencies between use charts and the glossary of definitions, noting that the absence of specific definitions currently grants the Planning Director discretion to interpret uses. The Commission agreed that further research and discussion are needed on several items, including animal keeping regulations, guest house requirements, and mobile home zoning designations. No motions were made, seconded, or voted upon regarding substantive code changes during this segment.
- Key topics discussed included:
- Use Chart Consistency: Staff highlighted discrepancies where uses listed in charts lack corresponding definitions or where definitions do not align with chart entries. Commissioners suggested the potential need for a master use chart or a system for written interpretations to ensure consistency.
- Crop Production and Horticulture: The status of crop production in R1 and R2 zones was discussed. While some properties currently grow crops, the use chart does not explicitly permit this in all residential zones. A suggestion was made to require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for crop production in these zones to regulate noise, pesticide use, and harvest activities.
- Animal Keeping: Concerns were raised regarding the lack of clarity in the definition of "animal keeping," specifically concerning "exotic animals" and roosters. Staff noted that current enforcement relies on noise ordinances and code compliance, as a previous ordinance regarding roosters was not finalized. Commissioners expressed concern that the current definition lacks specific regulations regarding waste management or space requirements and suggested clarifying the definition or revisiting a separate animal keeping ordinance.
- Guest Houses vs. ADUs: The distinction between guest houses and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) was debated. Staff explained that guest houses currently require a CUP to prevent conversion into full-time living units without oversight. Commissioners discussed whether to remove the CUP requirement to make guest houses permitted by right, weighing concerns about increased density and illegal conversions against arguments that the CUP acts as an unnecessary deterrent.
- Mobile Homes and Recreational Vehicles: The Commission discussed why mobile homes outside of parks are permitted in the R1 zone but not other residential zones. Staff clarified that state law requires mobile homes to be allowed in at least one residential zone. A mobile home on a permanent foundation is defined as a single-family dwelling and is permitted in all residential zones, whereas a mobile home on a chassis is restricted to R1. The discussion also covered the distinction between mobile homes and recreational trailers under state law and HUD standards.
- Daycare Facilities: An inconsistency was identified in the definitions for family daycare homes, where the number of children allowed in "large" (7–14) and "small" (8 or fewer) facilities overlaps. Staff noted these parameters may be governed by state law and require further research.
- Growth Management Plan: Staff noted that references to the city's growth management plan in the use tables are currently unenforceable due to state law restrictions, though the city continues to track the numbers.
- Residential Zones (R3 and Single-Family): The scarcity of R3 (multifamily) lots and the potential for future rule changes to expand this category were discussed. Single-family dwellings were identified as a permitted use across all residential zones.
- Utility and Communication Facilities: The Commission acknowledged that federal and state laws, including specific shot clock requirements, govern utility and communication facilities, limiting local regulatory changes.
- Commercial Zones and Definitions: Staff noted that several commercial uses listed in the use chart (e.g., agricultural processing, vegetable packaging, clothing production, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals) lack corresponding definitions. Staff recommended researching definitions used by neighboring jurisdictions to prepare for potential future applications.
- Zoning Map Discrepancies: A discrepancy was identified between the zoning code and the zoning map regarding the MPD (Mixed Purpose District) zone near Southern Brand Circle. Staff noted that correcting this is an administrative GIS task that does not require Commission action.
- M1 (Light Industrial) Zone:
- 500-Foot Rule: The impact of the 500-foot setback rule for certain uses within the M1 zone was debated, noting that much of the zone is within 500 feet of residential areas.
- Permitted vs. Conditional Uses: Members questioned why certain uses (e.g., gun shops, meat markets, pet stores, garden supply) are permitted or restricted in M1. There was a consensus that retail uses should likely require a CUP rather than being permitted by right to preserve M1 land for manufacturing and R&D.
- Outdoor Dining: The prohibition of outdoor dining in the M1 zone was noted, with suggestions that it might be appropriate to allow it via CUP.
- VMU (Village Mixed Use) Zone:
- Single-Family Dwellings: The presence of single-family dwellings as a permitted use within the VMU zone was discussed. Some members argued this is counterproductive to the mixed-use intent and suggested requiring a CUP, while others argued the market naturally transitions these properties.
- Design Review: Staff clarified that exterior alterations or changes in use typically trigger design review, even if no physical construction occurs.
- CUP for VMU: A proposal was raised to require CUPs for all uses in the VMU zone to maintain control, though some members noted that certain uses (e.g., art galleries) should remain permitted by right.
- C1 (Commercial) Zone:
- Theaters and Community Centers: The Commission discussed why theaters and community centers are not permitted by right in C1. It was suggested that theaters should be permitted by right, subject to design review.
- Setbacks: The Commission noted that the C1 zone requires a 10-foot front setback, yet many existing buildings have zero setbacks. Staff agreed to investigate the feasibility of allowing zero-lot-line buildings in specific areas.
- Open Space Zone: The Commission questioned how home occupations and residential accessory uses are permitted in Open Space zones. Staff clarified that these are tied to farmworker housing provisions and that existing single-family homes in these zones may be legal non-conforming.
- Definitions: Staff identified approximately 30–40 uses in the code that lack definitions. It was agreed that staff would consult with departmental staff to prioritize which definitions are necessary for future code updates.
Public Comment
- Jacob Acosta: Mr. Acosta presented project concepts including an "Eco-Living Village" for homeless housing, an "Ojai Dam Project" proposal, and a visitor map initiative. He also offered suggestions on solar panels, rooster noise fees, exotic animal fees, ADU regulations, commercial zoning, toxic products, meat processing, firearm storage, and trash recycling. Staff accepted his materials for the record.
- Brian Akins: Mr. Akins, a Historic Preservation Commissioner, congratulated the Commission on scheduling a discussion regarding the property at 242 East Ojai Avenue. He noted that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) had reviewed the project on December 11 but felt restricted in discussing specific details. He expressed interest in future HPC discussions on the matter.
Scheduling and Upcoming Meetings
- 242 East Ojai Avenue: Staff clarified that this item was tentatively scheduled for the January 21 meeting but requires verification that it has been fully vetted by the HPC. The item may need to be rescheduled or re-noticed until the HPC process is confirmed.
- 102 North Signal Street: This item is confirmed for the January 21 meeting, as it will be reviewed by the HPC on the preceding night.
- Other Pending Items: Staff noted several pending items, including a DRP/CUP for 302 L Paseo Road (outdoor dining), which may not be ready for the January 21 meeting.
- Joint Meeting: Staff reminded the Commission of an upcoming joint meeting with the City Council, tentatively scheduled for the second quarter of 2026 (likely June), to discuss the work plan.
Director's Report
- Staff reminded the Commission of the Director's Exemptions process, noting a recent exemption sent out on January 22. Staff emphasized the importance of the two-step review process for exemptions and encouraged Commissioners to review the documents and raise any concerns.
Commission Member Reports
- No reports were provided by Commission members.
City Council Liaison
- The City Council liaison was absent.
Adjournment
- The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. No formal motions were made, seconded, or voted upon in the final segments of the meeting.