UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.Scheduled start 6:00 PM · clock-time estimates pending review
0:00 – 0:0218 turns
The meeting of the Ojai Planning Commission is being called to order on Wednesday, January 7th, 2026 at 6 p.m.. Who is in the?
Sherry.
Sherry? Sherry would you call roll please?
Chair Murphy? Here. Vice-Chair Chesley?
Here
Commissioner Rice-Schmidt? Here Commissioner Graham absent
Are there any additions or changes to the agenda?
No.
OK, public communications is next on our agenda. Is there anyone here who needs to speak to the general public communications item? Sherry, is there anyone online?
No,
OK. We will move to the consent items. The minutes of the regular meeting of December 3rd have been supplied to us. Have you had a chance to review them? Any changes? I would entertain a motion to accept. Approve
the minutes. I move to approve the minutes as submitted.
Second.
Sherry, roll call.
Rai Schmidt?
Yes.
Chesley? Yes. Murphy?
Yes Okay Moving on to our discussion item of the evening, which is title 10 allowed uses and permit requirements for residential commercial manufacturing and special-purpose zoning districts as well as the definitions in conditional use permit and minor conditional use permits standards and process I At this point I will turn the meeting over to Lucas
0:02 – 0:131 turns
Thank you. So good evening commissioners community everybody that's online The item before you tonight is a discussion It's no decisions being made the wonderful thing about this as we get to have a discussion with the item That is before us tonight kind of sort through it ask questions I'll go through a little bit of history and then I'll provide some clarification As I'm seeing the subject heading line right now And based on the information that I also submitted and provided as attachments. So, kind of the purpose for tonight is twofold. One is the commission at the last meeting or the meeting before that had asked for this item which was on future agendas to be brought before for discussion.
And it's twofold. One is, it has information as it relates to the use chart for residential, commercial, industrial, those special-use areas. In addition to that, tied to those pieces are the definitions and then also tied to that is conditional use permits, minor conditional use permits and the discussion that would go on with that. What I would like to do for tonight being that we don't have all four here is focus on the use chart and the definitions and then give a little bit of Background as to why we're having the conversation in the first place. So guess what? In 2019 when I first started here just give everybody a little history lesson and There was a large discussion about the inconsistencies with the zoning code and that's what I'm talking about specifically is title 10.
It was taken up by myself and the chair at the time, Mr. Quillacy to really kind of comb through the entire thing and create some consistency top-to-bottom I would say there was more than 20 meetings that this body held and discussed in great detail when we had each of those meetings We seemed to find stuff that was quote unquote a deeper dive And one of those, so conversations and meetings this item came up which was the use chart. The way in which it operates and has a conversation with the definitions.
So before we really kind of dove into it, we hit on a couple of really light things to kind of brush over it and then realize that there was a much deeper discussion. This is one of those deeper discussions that we're going to get to have tonight Don't anticipate It being a one meeting discussion the nice thing about these discussions is there's questions that come up I can't necessarily answer them. Guess what? I get to do it to go and do the research But I will say this in the conversation we're having tonight the discussion We're having tonight. There may be an opportunity for one of you To also help me as a staff person navigate some of these questions and even maybe some of the revisions that we're looking at potentially making I'd like to also have that conversation at some tonight sometime tonight.
It was it was very helpful to have Steve at the helm helping me providing some of that research Having that clarifying Conversation because what ended up happening is during those 20 or so meetings We brought it back to this full body is the conversation was here. It is this is what we've come up with What do you think and then we'd have conversations about the red lines that were coming forward I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it was all design, sunshine and rainbows. We really rolled our sleeves up and did some of that good work. That's what they call some of the stuff we're doing right now.
Wordsmithing to a certain degree but also providing clarification to some of the inconsistencies that still exist but on a much deeper level. The surface piece is probably 95% addressed But there's some deeper stuff here. Even when I was going through it this afternoon, I saw a lot of inconsistencies in how the use chart either does or doesn't conversate with the glossary. And a lot of the times when you're looking at these pieces, especially with this zoning code, those two pieces typically should be like this and not necessarily like this, right? And if they do do that, then there's got to be some way in which to navigate that. A lot of the times you'll see communities or cities that actually have definitions built into specific articles.
That exists in some of the sections. Here with the sections that I'm going to provide over tonight all of those definitions live within the glossary which is the very last article for Title X. So it's a history piece I kind of talked about started touching on some of the concerns. I wanted to open it up for conversation before I go into some of the deeper stuff Do you guys have any questions in terms of where we're potentially going?
If you want, I can even talk about kind of the makeup of how these articles are created and some of the purposes. I know Carrie can probably chime in on some of this stuff as well. Typically with these, the way these are set up, Like let's say for instance with title 10 Chapter 2 which is zoning regulations the residential zoning districts. There's a purpose that purpose statement really kind of guides that reader through what the Regulations are and those regulations tend to Revolve around objective and subjective matters the objective matters tend to be the the matters as it relates to setbacks and height a number of stories It's pretty it's pretty straightforward. The subjective pieces tend to be buried a little bit deeper A little bit further And then like for instance in the residential there's even a section that talks about solar access and making sure that that continues to be something of primary purpose From a From a use standpoint table 2.2 is really two point two and I want to say it's like two point four maybe Two point five no, I think it's two point four Yeah, 2.4 and I think it's 2.6 Those are the those are the tables we're really going to be yeah table two point six Are the ones that we're gonna be kind of focusing on tonight?
Or at least the ones that I'd like to focus on tonight in terms of a discussion I've taken the liberty of actually going through each one of these uses and then comparing them to whether or not there is an Associated definition which eat with each of these and just to give a little bit of context We actually this body Chair Murphy, you might not have been here when we were having this conversation. You might have come on just as we were having this conversation but there was a There was an idea of creating a use chart that took That created consistency across the board right now what we what we're looking at here with the use charts with with all three of these is Kind of a broken up allowed uses piece where Some of them have overlapping uses that are identified and some of them do not.
I can tell you that when you're looking at a use chart from planning standpoint, you want some consistency between the two right? So if you're looking at a use chart for a specific zone, you want that use chart to identify all the same uses that are being also criticized or identified within the C1 Within the residential or within the manufacturing you want that consistency, right?
That doesn't exist. That's the first thing that I think this body noticed a few years back What came out of that discussion was the idea of merging all these into one super Use chart which was kind of interesting started diving into that but I'll just tell you that there is maybe an hour spent on that and So it's one idea. The thing that I'm noticing, I wanna say there's probably 30 definitions maybe more that don't correlate directly with these uses. It was very interesting when I did that quick because Steve and I had done that initial conversation and went through the use chart and realized that the two didn't mesh A lot of times they did, but there was also a lot that just didn't. We have a use that suddenly now... That's not to say that the zoning code is obsolete or it can't be complied with because it says very specifically within the definitions that if a use is not identified then guess who gets to make up the definition?
The director. Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of coming up with definitions. Instead, I'd like to already have that in the code or at least to reference it with the use that's maybe being considered. So there's a little bit of inconsistencies with the way in which one use chart is speaking or not speaking to the definitions piece. I'm open for a conversation or questions or comments at this point.
And then we obviously with this being a discussion, if the community would like to weigh in certainly encourage that as well. This is fun for me. I love doing this. Well, I think it's an opportunity to let it soak in. I think at the same time this is a two-way street in terms of the conversation. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that you have all the answers right now. I am not going to sit here and pretend that I have all the answers but I do know this. The way in which each of these articles are identified, at least within the use chart piece there needs to be something done And it's something that we as a department continue to struggle with.
We've just figured it out at this point, but it's the squeaky wheel. It's one of the squeaky wheels that needs to be addressed and thank you for bringing it up either a meeting or two ago so
0:13 – 0:2212 turns
I actually I looked at it pretty closely and I actually I don't think it's that bad. I think it personally I think it works I know there's a couple of things in here that I said, well, you know, I didn't necessarily agree with something not being permitted. And one was in the residential zone, one of the larger zones it wasn't allowed to have crops but I know for sure that at least two properties in the city are pixie tangerine growers.
And and we want that we want to keep that and it's It's part of
yeah,
you know what? Ojai all about and why isn't it allowed in these zones. It's already happening So there's a couple of those instances that I think we should amend that but from a chart perspective if it's not in here the way I look at it is you can't possibly think of everything and When somebody comes in with something new that hasn't been seen before, that's an opportunity to one look at it as a CUP possibly.
Well I think that's what the way the direction is you have to do a CUP but that's one of those things where we can tag our zoning ordinance and say you know what? That's going to go on the next round of revisions. We didn't think of that before. I don't think this chart needs a lot of time, personally. That's my opinion. I mean, I saw a lot of inconsistencies there was... I can tell you like a footnote wasn't referenced right or something like that which I picked up on but we can go line by line by each land use.
Some of those were a little... Bed-and-breakfast is a you know, CUPs required in the c1 but it's permitted in the BP that doesn't make sense to me So things like that But overall I think it's actually decent
Maybe I came on harsher than maybe was intended. The piece that I'm talking about, you're actually getting into the use aspect and whether or not something is a P, an MUP, a CUP or just not allowed? And if it's not identified within the code, and there's a process for that. So it's weighed really kind of by the Planning Commission either by a conditional use permit or we just identify that it continues to not be allowed.
The discretion is mine but the reality is if it'a new use guess who's gonna be seeing it? This body. That only makes sense.
It would help me if you could explain how it was decided that something would require a CUP or be permitted. I'm looking at the bottom of page two of 63, a mobile home outside of the park is allowed in R1 But not any of the other zones. How does that kind of decision get made? Why would that be?
Which page are you on?
I'm on page 2 of 63, the bottom of the chart.
Attachment A. Attachment A? Yeah it's like the second page in the back of chapter two. All right at the very bottom
My guess, this is a guess, is that way back when mobile homes were probably not desirable in Ojai. And so they had to allow mobile homes in a residential zone so they picked R1. But if you look in the definitions, you'll see the mobile home, if it's on a permanent foundation is considered a single family. So you can actually put a mobile home in any residential zone if it's on a foundation and that's in the definitions.
Outside of a park I mean What's I think interesting about how you're bringing it up and not to say that sort of how some of this is organized isn't right But I think I guess the other piece also is like, you know, there's only map itself which It feels like you know, and I've seen it where? To your point. It's like you have all of the possible uses on one side. And it's not that you have like a rogue along the top, but you're just listing which, you know, like within the exercise of understanding how to look at this as a single thing, the residential, the commercial and other I think can sort of like we'll look at that question for example because then you have to be like well here is a multifamily dwelling We're not just saying, is it a residential use?
Is it in a commercial uses? It's like, yeah. What is it in? And we look at all of those things kind of equally and I think in a way, I guess, I don't know how one considers what comes first or what comes second but looking at the zoning map, well, it's kinda like, well what is the zoning map also telling us? And I guess if we take one as being primary and the other being secondary in a way, The question that I've had from like early on and joining the commission is about the village mixed use and being able to have a single family residence within it.
And how that serves the purpose of a village mixed use, there's like a whole thing to discuss there. And then if you look at the map and you see where it is, and that kind of adds to the conversation. So I could see work around kind of like a couple of almost Diagrams of these two things together and that's how you're sort of I guess it's like a it's like a check Like, how are we doing so far? Well, we said these things You know Are we missing these others as we try to fill out this other way of organizing this information
Yeah, I think for how I was looking at this and it's the wonderful thing about having this conversation. For me, it's kind of setting the table for the discussion which is the way in which you start to Katrina's point. It feels like it's already in really good shape right? In terms of how it operates. I think the concern that I have is anytime that we're looking at those different uses, we have found instances where the use doesn't necessarily – it either doesn't have a definition and then we're having to figure that out or the definition isn't necessarily an apples-to-apples piece. Where like we think it's this.
The determination is really up to me at the end of the day. I'd rather have a more clear cut approach to it. Does it work? I agree it works. Is it a little frustrating at times? Yeah. I don't know that I could think of a zoning code that I've worked in, in other cities where I'm like this is perfect. It's not perfect. It just isn't. I agree with that. To your point in terms of doing a comparative piece, I like that idea of taking the zoning kind of having that conversational piece. Obviously there are some opinions and some thoughts in terms of how some of these areas are either identified as a P, not allowed, a CUP or an MEP.
Those are all interesting conversations. I think first, understanding the baseline of what we're looking at doing and then second diving into those specific uses and doing that comparative piece and using some kind of interesting examples that are either live or have been considered.
Yeah, I don't think the comparative is like saying that the way Table 2.2 works in its relationship to Title 10 you know in the residential section standing alone within it That might still make a lot of sense but to have another thing that's kind of like A master that allows you to look at it across the board and then here's like, okay now we can go to the specific one and really
0:22 – 0:2717 turns
One thing to note from a legal standpoint, in the absence of definitions and where you're trying to see if something fits. I think that could over time lead to an inconsistent application of the code. You as the director might interpret the definition this way and apply it this way. Going forward, a future director or someone might interpret it differently. Or if you don't interpret it the same on a case-by-case basis, it's an inconsistent application of law. And so maybe having a more pristine definition to guide you is recommended.
I do know that when I worked in the County of Santa Barbara, there was a person specifically had this job. So it wasn't the director but they had the job of doing interpretations. And so they were, if there was an interpretation done it was written and it was basically, it wasn't codified but it was a written interpretation. And those the planners would reference those. So if it wasnít in the book they would reference the legal, well not legal I donít know if itís legal, I guess it is legal but the person in charge of doing the interpretations that was how it stood So the planners would reference that and in the future those interpretations would get incorporated into the code I could see a process like that happening Here, too.
You know you have a written interpretation it's It goes in in a file that we can reference or you know until such time. That's
actually
a
good
idea It's like setting a precedent
Yeah
I like the, so the consistency piece is the thing that I'm always trying to battle. I'm like okay what was the decisions that we've made in the past because this doesn't feel like I've got a squeaky clean approach to what we're doing here? And then we're using institutional knowledge try to remember oh well you know we did it this way and this thing and I'm like alright well
that's not.
The interpretation piece, I remember Pasadena doing something very similar to what you just described years ago. So here's the thing. That's an interesting idea as it relates to how we flush some of this out. I could take that back, do some research, see what other cities have done, other counties have done. Some of the success stories there, and maybe that's something we could come back and kind of give some examples. I like that.
And another thing when we're going through these tables, I think it's absolutely necessary that we all have the map because it really matters.
Is
it not on? Yeah, it matters because I downloaded this. The latest map is 2008. Yes. And when you're thinking about land uses and you can identify Oh, here's the r01 zone and you can see where they are. Yeah, and what makes sense? And and so I think when we're going down If we're gonna do that line by line We have to know where these zones are in our city.
Yes Yeah, I agree because there's kind of like I mean there's clear especially in the residential. There's a clear Kind of like stepping of allowances of uses Yeah mostly related to density and so you kind of yeah it's how does that How's that diagram out? You know, because it could be the diagram like you could imagine. It's like well the main street is the tallest street and then you're like tapering out from there, you know That's not quite what what happens but
Okay I Agree with the zoning map being included for future reference
how does the state law that continually changes affect this? How do you incorporate the new state laws,
like ADU? There's a number of regulations that we either reference in our zoning code or we have our own kind of interpretation skating and making sure that we're still in line with government code. ADU law is another one. In terms of zoning, there's not a whole lot that government code provides. It gives us a lot of latitude there. Some of the details that exist within that I think begin to get a little bit blurry like for instance any sort of affordable housing within the residential.
Once you hit that category, all bets are off if you're hitting certain density and you're hitting certain affordability rates. That's for another discussion. I know your office is looking at a conversation piece to educate.
0:27 – 0:3740 turns
Sure. Brian, come on up.
It's
Connor.
Oh, Connor? Yes, come up so we can hear you and introduce yourself again.
Thank you so much. My name is Connor I'm the new reporter with Ojai Valley News. I have something of an obtuse question Are you guys discussing reducing ambiguity in the use chart through expanding existing definitions? Or are you talking about reducing ambiguity in the city's zones by potentially changing the map? I'm sorry Does that make sense?
It's really more definitions and use chart. Map is a bigger discussion.
But I think it's in the sense of the map is not changing. So you work through all this stuff, assuming the map is correct. You might uncover some things as you're doing that and then there's actually a reason to like a clear kind of path talking about the map if that were to be something that was also important to look at. Absolutely.
Yeah, I know there's a couple Things in the map that probably should be changed. And I'm sure the property owners would love to have them changed, but just haven't done it because it's quite costly to go through the process. So maybe at some point we can look at that too. Do
you have ideas?
I have a couple. Mainly those that are public, quasi-public zoned that have single family residences on. That kind of thing. There's a couple sprinkled here in this neighborhood.
Can we, what might actually make sense for that one is having a separate discussion just talking about some of the different ideas on I don't want to call it rezone but maybe zoning consideration or alternative zoning. Maybe something like that because I don't want to call it rezone at this point. It's a little bit more There's a lot of depth to the rezone. I think in the, what? The seven, six years that I've been here going on seven, I've only done one rezone and it was highly contentious and there was a lot of discussion that went on with it so...
These I would think are not, wouldn't be contentious.
Okay. Yeah. I'm open, look as long as this body is open for the discussion and then kind of sorting through the pros and cons there's a whole little analysis that can be done to kinda tease out what we're looking at versus what it potentially changes to and the pros and cons to it.
So what do you think, Lucas? I mean, should we go through it? I mean, is that what that would be an ideal situation or. OK,
so do you I'm I am I am 100 percent all on board with going through the you start line by line if you want. I did it this morning.
I guess my only hesitation with it is like
We could also hit up on some items that I noticed maybe, or maybe you noticed. And maybe focus on those.
Yeah. Maybe that's a good way to start.
OK. Does somebody want to start?
Well, I can start with just a couple. Okay. So page 2 of 63 crop production horticulture. I think in the R02 and R01 they should be CUPs.
So you're saying R02, R01, CUP?
Because they basically have the same definition as RO4. It's just a different...
They're just smaller, typically smaller lots.
But they're still like within the...
RO1? So this is a good one. So you look at the RO1 it's mainly up the top of Signal, top of Montgomery, top of Daly Road, RO1 and the Arbolada, Del Oro A lot of those properties don't have a lot of room for an orchard, say. But some are large enough and if they're large enough why not allow them to have trees?
Now if you were to do a CUP, what would be the purpose of the CUP? To provide some sort of regulation as it relates to maybe size, hours of operation, something like that. Regulating noise. I mean noise already would be regulated through the – well actually it's not even allowed so it wouldn't be regulated. Pesticides sure. So okay, so it kind of makes sense because anytime you're looking at CEP I'm always wondering Okay, so why are we doing a CEP?
It's something that runs with land and then depending on from owner to owner They both they've always got to agree with those those conditions
Harvest time, you know trucks have to come in and other people Sure into your neighborhood. So your neighbors may have an issue and it gives the neighbors an opportunity to to come to the public hearing.
Okay, I also want to note that there is a clear definition for crop production and horticulture so we're the connection is very clear there If we're on the same page, which is page two. The definition that I noticed didn't match was animal keeping the very first one if you look at that definition That just doesn't it doesn't make sense and I will admit when I first came on There was an animal keeping ordinance that was being considered at that time. We never ended up going anywhere with it mainly because The community members that that were very interested in the council members are interested ended up Well, the community members end up moving so then they were longer interested in and then the council ended up changing So
yeah, so I did notice and I have it in my notes on animal keeping is you know the rooster issue
Yeah, so there's been that was a discussion in 2019 2020 While we were talking about animal keeping. I was always under the impression that roosters weren't that were basically weren't allowed but
We had an ordinance that said they weren't allowed at one point and they're in my neighborhood And then we had an animal keeping Ordinance that I don't know what happened to that ordinance But wait, I do know that when I was at the city working as the plan City Planner We would reference this ordinance. So
Yeah, and it's very interesting I don't know if in 2000 so For the for the audience And you know Katrina. I think you remember this there was a significant code update that took place in 2004 and I'm not sure during that time something was revised or during the time in which you ended up leaving between you know 2011 and all the way up to 2019 something happened but yeah there's no I'm not seeing anything instead what it is is we've been using animal control to address situation at certain times because we're under contract with them.
Yeah so and it may still exist here I'll look for it if it's buried somewhere I'm looking forward
to
it Right? I'll look for it.
If
you find it,
I look forward to having that conversation at the next
meeting. Okay. Just because if roosters are allowed—I mean, if you go on Facebook, Ojai Community Network, people are talking about roosters. Are they allowed in the city or are they not?
So when we were doing the animal keeping, we actually had a very strict standard that identified roosters were not going to be allowed. And I had a room full of people and we had that conversation that said that they needed roosters and I was like well that's weird okay so then we need them or we don't? Because we were also talking about large animals versus the smaller animals And then whether or not we get into exotic animals as it relates to the animal keeping. It was a riveting conversation that we had.
0:37 – 0:4222 turns
Think the intent was when it says does not include birds cats dogs and other household pets Those are automatically allowed Without you know, but that is not clear in the definition So it needs it needs a clarification. You know that those are allowed without
Or what's exotic
Yeah, and what's exotic
I started going it down that that rabbit hole and I found myself lost in tunnels Because there's a lot of different code sections during that time that That cities cities use or don't use or clarify or don' t clarify.
Why are exotic animals exempt?
They're not allowed
Well, no. So the way the definition reads it says animal raising and keeping the non-commercial keeping or raising of farm animals including cattle goats horses sheep swine Including potbellied pigs fowl poultry and other animals determined by the director not to be common household pets Does not include birds cats dogs and other household pets or exotic animals so in my mind when you're reading that that means Birds, cats, dogs other household pets are allowed.
But an exotic animal you could have a lion
who
knows?
I think if you look and you if you were to just do it search for exotic animals I don't I think this is the only area in our code that it's referenced so
Can you search for animal permit?
I'm gonna, I'm actually going to search right now just out of curiosity. But let's continue the conversation while I look this up.
Anyway yeah that is a good one too.
Just to get it off my list of things page 37 C and D at the top In a large family daycare home, you're talking 7 to 14 children. In a small family daycare home, you're talking 8 or fewer? You have to get those numbers aligned.
I did—you know what that's funny? I noticed that this morning. I was like well that doesn't make any sense. Seven to fourteen but then we say anything that is for the small daycare is... Eight or fewer. Eight or fewer! I'm like well that's an overlap that's not supposed to be happening.
That's a problem.
That's a challenge. Duly noted So here's the fun thing like what you had mentioned thank you for mentioning that by the way I do have to check state law on that one because I think there are parameters and there's also parameters that we may not be able to even Touch the way in which this is operated because those those operations may be handled solely at the state level I'm dealing with one right now.
So you could tell the state law that they need to fix it?
Yeah, you get to go on their state website and navigate through their process to provide comment.
I had another question. You know all the use tables has reference to the growth allocation pursuant to the city's residential and commercial growth management plan
So yeah, there's an easy answer to that one. So we do a an annual review of that however State law has basically said that we cannot Enforce this and I think they had it until 2030 and I don't know if it's been pushed even beyond that at this point so Well, OK. So the last time I brought it forward, it was more like hey we can't enforce this but we're just keeping track of the numbers at this point so just be aware of it. It's kind of a receiving file at this point.
Could we remove it? I think that's a conversation to have because at this point they've pushed it out and I think it's actually either 10 or 15 years now before we can even start regulating it again and who knows what the numbers are going to be by then. It is kind of a hot button. I think there was at least at some point, a very brief discussion on it and probably as brief as our conversation right now on it a few years back when it first came forward that basically that regulation was being frozen.
0:42 – 0:5548 turns
Microphone
microphone
You had asked where the animal permits were and I'm not sure if this is a reference to which you're making I think title 5 based on an ordinance that was ordinance 933 contains provisions on wild animal control section And So
these these are specifically taken from the county's Regulations, so we basically adopted their regulations. That's that's what we're looking at here It was recently actually just adopted by City Council and when I say the end of 2024
This is in reference to the daycare
No, this is in reference to the animal piece that we're talking about. I don't know that it goes into... Okay so I typed in exotic animals and it takes me directly to title five basically but it doesn't mention any there's no exotic animals instead it references wild animals
Okay, and there's no permit process for animal permit.
Microphone. We're having a discussion. Yeah, it's for the record. My apologies. It mentions that animal control departments should be contacted. These animals are regulated by that division and maintaining wild animals or reptiles requires adequate confinement and control. I don't know any other...it doesn't specify further.
So really what's happened, I mean since I've been here and I think it was even before I was here is we've taken on these regulations. So Title V is where all this lives now. To your reference maybe in 2004 there may have been some sort of carve out that's obviously been removed and now this lives here.
Okay so in absence of any ordinance regarding roosters they are allowed in the city as long
So now we get into the noise situation and I can just tell you that it typically involves, I think every instance has required co-compliance to get involved. Why? Because they're crowing at five o'clock in the morning and I have a co-compliance officer that's here at six so... We're checking in on it and we're finding ways in which to move them along. Very rarely have we had, I can't think of one right now in the seven years I've been here where we've had a resident that's like, I'm not getting rid of it.
It's it's been a slippery slope to certain degree kind of uncertain in terms of how to regulate, but it seems like We're batting a thousand for people being agreeable to finding solutions But I also I don't want to sit here and pretend because the conversation that I remember having in 2019 when I first came on I was like Yeah, let's just outlaw him. And I sat in a room full of people and I was like maybe we shouldn't do that. That's not a good idea. Maybe we should find a way to compromise. They're like yeah that's what we should do and I'm like okay well then I think that's what's come out of it but here's the thing interpretation like you were talking about in the beginning that could actually go along ways in terms of helping co-compliance and helping the rest of staff Navigate beyond my years here.
I think that would be helpful in creating some sort of a log for that
Yeah Well, okay, I do think that animal raising and keeping I agree with you that needs to be updated
Okay, so the definition. Here's here's here's what I would offer for For that one I would need someone here to help in that effort, and some of the research and navigating revisions through a redline format. Because I was going to bring it up anyway but I'm glad that you brought it up already. Not in terms of taking it as far as an animal keeping ordinance but just clarifying the definition, teasing it out more.
Not everybody at once.
Well, I'm just thinking animal keeping is permitted now this is so this is this is a new ordinance than when I Was familiar with it. It wasn't permitted across the board So you couldn't have farm animals at your house and there we at one point the city had an ordinance about keeping horses So do we do we have something like that anymore? No
Yeah,
that was part of the animal keeping so you needed a certain amount of space per horse so I think we need that still so I think You know, we're allowing animal keeping with no regulations whatsoever. I think
that's... Yeah. The waste was the biggest discussion that we had in terms of managing that.
Yeah. So I don't know. That's a little concerning to me.
I already have something in the hopper that we could work on from that standpoint. So a jumping off point meaning I had prepared an ordinance six years ago. As Bobby had discussed it, we could bring it forward and dust it off and see how much needs to be revised at this point. Yeah?
Or do you want to put that within the scope of a committee that goes through each of the definitions?
That's an idea.
Well, it seems to me animal keeping should be permitted. I mean, it is Ojai. We're rural. It seems consistent with our community but it does seem like it needs some kind of minimum regulations so I think there should be a separate ordinance like we had at one point There's
an ordinance that had been drafted at one point and that could be that could be discussed before this body again as a part of the animal keeping piece As a part of the definition now, maybe the animal keeping ordinance doesn't go anywhere But at least have that conversation see the nice thing about having a discussion is there's no decisions being made We can go as deep into the rabbit hole as we want on some of these issues
I
So that's line one. Well,
yeah, you kind of did line two also. Yeah,
we're moving quite a long way. OK, so in that first page I'm hearing animal keeping definition and have that conversation regarding animal keeping ordinance. Conversation, discussion crop production horticulture looking at a CUP within the R02-R01 And just for reference, RO2 and RO1 refers to the number of acres. So the minimum number of acres in those cases is RO1 requires one, RO 2 requires two.
Just so everybody's playing at home too. So then we jump down to the rest of this community center equestrian facility golf course Guest house home occupation and then the last one was Mobile home outside of a
park when you talk about the guest the guest house line As I understand it a guest house in an ADU are different only in the kitchen facility
correct,
okay And an ADU is allowed by law, by
right. And just as a historical context for the ADUs because it is on here as a second residential unit which is basically an ADU We used to review these as a second story ADU, but I was made aware by legal that we cannot do that.
Second story is out now also?
Yeah, we can't review it. Second stories as an addition that's not in ADU absolutely comes before this body.
But if it's an ADU... It's
okay
Wow, okay Why would we why would they need a CUP in each of the districts or zones? For a guest house which seems like a lesser Structure
do you want me to give you the planning response I So whatever guest houses and ADUs before tiny houses or junior ADUs were even a thought. Guest houses were the kind of the solution to, or a thought process before ADUs really became something so what would happen is cities would come in and say well let's allow a guest house Well, we want to make sure that that guest house is appropriate, designed appropriately, located in an appropriate location. It meets all the standards. You would typically do that through a zoning clearance but if you apply a CUP which you absolutely have every right as a community has every right to do that, you deter guest houses from going into communities because there's a higher litmus test, a design review body that comes before versus just checking the boxes So CUPs can be used just as a
deterrent.
Well, it can be used as a tool. I mean you could call it a deterrent to this. Okay. To what we're looking at here? I think it was deterrent. The same thing is true with ADUs when ADUs first came on there they required CUPs and highly contentious. When I first moved here from the Midwest and I went to my first ADU hearing I was like why is this... There's a bunch of people in the audience talking about another unit that's a secondary unit Highly contentious, that has all gone by the wayside. But guest houses remain and state law hasn't touched that at this point. I don't think they will given its context.
Why wouldn't we just change all those CUPs to permitted then?
We could! It is kind of an old standard by which to operate to deter it. I mean you could end up requiring it just to be permitted.
In my mind, it's more like an accessory building.
It really kind of is. It's like a glorified pool house not to say that everybody has pool houses here but you do. I mean it basically is the same thing as the guesthouse.
I do know that one of the reasons why they had a CUP on the guesthouses because in the past we were not so In support of housing additional housing Intensifying our neighborhoods so the CUP was one way to Require a deed restriction the property owner saying that one and there's a lot of them in town One has to be owner occupied the property And it cannot have more than two plumbing fixtures. So you can't, you can have a washer and a sink but you can't have a toilet. You can't...so the idea was that nobody's going to be living there. That's a guest house so you could have a bathroom. So it was deed restricted So it would not turn into an ADU. And so that mentality is out the door.
But it's also funny because it says persons permanently employed on the premises, which is a little bit...
They would have to come inside the main house? To use the kitchen. Seems unlikely. Yeah. Unless we really don't want to promote guest houses, or yeah, guest houses or pool houses. Let's make it a P because it's less intense than a second unit.
It is.
It's permitted. It still going to have to go through as you said the zoning check so it's all gonna have to adhere to the setbacks and to the build percentage for the site and all that
0:55 – 1:0039 turns
The one thing that I would say from a control standpoint, so you think about ADU law it very strictly identifies like design consistency with the main residence. I'm not sure that that's built into the guest house piece So you probably lose some of that but I also The deed restriction thing is interesting because that was across the board for the longest time and I I was like Oh, I guess that's this thing and then it got taken off the table for ADUs and it was like oh But then guest houses weren't mentioned anywhere in government. It didn't fit the bill of what was, you know some of the purposes that were being driven at that time.
Would it just be a clarifying maybe like if the guest house is visible from the street then it requires a design?
Well no single-family single story doesn't require design review.
Correct
Even a new
so you could effectively have a guest house that has a modern design, but then the front house Yeah, yeah That's
I mean things no things old, you know all the new can come together nicely also, but um,
I Don't disagree with that car. I don't disagree with that statement and The context of that statement though, a lot of the times when we're reviewing like for instance ADUs and someone comes in with a modern design and it's very clearly not that. We go back and we say look you got to get in a lot closer than what we're looking at here right now. It's not even on the same page
Yeah, I think also built into what qualifies as an ADU when you check the boxes has something to do with parking and so on. And you wouldn't be able to impose those conditions on a guest house unless you had some type of CUP to attack. Well that's a good point. The guest house would still have to provide parking.
No because we don't know. Is there a parking
requirement in guest houses?
It's just like an
additional
room Yeah, it's like an additional room where do you find that I mean
I guess that's the question. Do you feel like it's an additional room? Because I think more than an additional room, well if it's a permanent employee then they have...
So a guest house requires a minimum parcel size of 20,000 square feet. Maximum floor area at the guest house should not exceed 640 square
feet.
Guest houses are constructed within 300 feet from an existing sewer line Oh, interesting. Guest houses should not be allowed on parcels where second units are currently located. That was okay. So you want to hear something kind of funny? You build a guest house first Yeah, then you can
build any it's
just it's a yeah
that seems like it should just be Whatever the law can handle I mean if the lock and handle both then I suppose it's fine Or it's a question
That's
I mean that's Property can handle it give setbacks Lock coverage It's just an accessory building because this point
thousand square feet seems kind of interesting
Because and it said it can only be 650 square feet
Yeah, I think it's Finding it Lucas. It's uh, so this is 10 dash 2
point
1705
guest
houses
So you're looking at larger properties, a relatively small building.
Almost half an acre. I
mean... I think those should be permitted by right because especially the way that state law is forcing us it just seems like there's no reason for the CUP in my mind.
What do you guys think?
Yeah, it's interesting. I feel like I'd want to maybe just double-check it a bit. But
you have to give your name and introduce yourself.
The reason for the CUP was because you have this great little guest house with full bathroom and who's to say they throw their little kitchen in and they have two ADUs and they're not allowed? That's why it was the controlling factor for converting it into an ADU anyway.
Okay, so that's actually a good point. Go
ahead. That was my point I guess earlier is that in the past we didn't want those converted to a second unit.
1:00 – 1:0641 turns
Here's, okay so there's pros. Let me just mention one potential con and this is something that I'm sure is happening even today it's where we have code compliance going out and we have whistleblowers making us aware of illegal construction that's taking place. There's a chance that there could be a guest house Being built that doesn't have the kitchen and then they have They put the ADU in and then they get to file for the ADU And then they have on a Sunday. They have somebody come out Right Obviously that requires Utilities and stuff like that to be to be addressed
There's there's also, you know a kitchenette. I mean the definition of a kitchen. I mean what is actually Cooking
appliance.
Okay, but I mean I can see a little hot pot maybe a half a refrigerator and down to sink and you
well, I think I guess the question that we need to ask is like what's the I mean, you know, we could say forget about the guest house at that point. You're right. I mean, assuming the worst, right? Then are we just OK with saying there should be two ADUs on a property in a sense? Because if you do that, then at least they require the parking and the other things. So what's the goal of a guest house?
So there's a couple of things to just think about when you're looking at kind of the density proportions for like residential or even VMU. And that is this, the housing element already identifies the interest in maintaining ADUs into the future. It also identifies a program that talks about expanding that. Meaning if we start seeing numbers dip what's the other approach the city is going to take over the next eight years? Because I mean 2021-2029 is what we're looking at for this housing element. Cycle What has happened recently is we have tiny houses that have come online and we have a growing interest with tiny houses That are being cited on property. Obviously, there's the only real big thing that they're That they're having to deal with
That's a pun, the only big
thing. That's true. The issue that keeps coming up for these tiny houses is the upfront cost for connections to sewer and water. That's what we keep finding over and over again. Even though the impact on these very small... These things can't be larger than 499 square feet so they're very small We're not talking we're talking 640 here and this is small 80 use can be up to 1200 square feet. I mean, yeah It's basically another small house on the property right?
So That's what I mean.
Yeah,
if you build a guest house from scratch and You put in a bathroom do you pay the 16 or $17,000 connection fee to the sewer or do you just hook it into your house and
For ADUs? No, for a guest house. I think you have the option of either connecting to existing... I don't think you necessarily... Guest houses don't have that same litmus test, I think from a sanitation standpoint. ADUs do. I think they have a rule that talks about whether it's attached or detached.
This just doesn't make a lot of sense to me
It's always asking. So the left hand is always asking what the right hands doing and some of these things A lot of times it's hey, this is going on and these are the regulations that are actually happening
Okay, but I toilet in a guest house You can just hook up to the house, but it's way to you
you pay them. I don't think that there's yeah
That's
for a guest house. You can just use your same sewer line. Yeah, same water. You don't need a separate meter
Would you? I think we have to leave the CUP in place.
So here's the thing, I think we probably don't have a separate meter
for what you're ADU
And it just connects the sewer line. I did, I am to have to deal with something with the
sanitary district, like a
minor one. Yeah, but it's not so it seems you related to, it was like scale and number of fixtures. Okay.
So did you build an ADU recently?
Not built. It was a conversion.
Oh, a compliance unit.
It was a garage
Okay, that's still an ADU. Even though it's converted, you're still turning it into an ADU? That's right. So yeah, there's a bunch of different ways you can do it either attached or detached. Yeah. So that one is attached. Yeah, it's just a conver... Detached. Oh! It's a detached garage.
Oh. So everything new had to go to it.
Right. Okay.
It doesn't have its own meter.
So you worked within the framework of a two-car garage?
One.
Within a one-car garage, so less than 400 square feet.
Didn't you say ADUs had to be 620? No the
guest house
Yeah, there's no minimum size. Oh, okay. Well there might be in building code But it's relatively small And you could get away with a one car garage and still make it
I'm just saying that on the plumbing side, it's not a huge thing.
There definitely is a sanitary hook-up fee.
Yeah, I've seen the real cost of that. Residents have brought that forward which is one of the concerns with the tiny houses and siting those.
1:06 – 1:1540 turns
Thank you.
No, but I think I mean I'm just I guess like the big thing we're talking about is like what I Mean working from the assumption that it is not unlikely that someone or a future Owner of a house that has a guesthouse would say, well yeah but I just throw a hot plate or like whatever and someone's basically been here full time. Whatever I mean just like if we kind of work from the assumption that Like a guest room is one thing but a separate structure where someone can spend time is another thing You know what? It's like kind of what do we want to see? We know that the state allows for the ADU and the junior ADU. So there's at least two other things potentially depending on lot size and all this that we can get. And so how does the guest house, which has nothing to do with the state and is just a local decision, how does that play into what we'd want to see?
It gets down to the pros and cons. I think that's where it really boils down to. Is the CUP something this community still wants to continue doing moving forward? This body's having that conversation right now,
right
once we actually notice it and start really having that conversation with a resolution With the draft ordinance that's attached to it. That gets forwarded to council and It's noticed to the paper And being that it's a citywide thing. We wouldn't actually notice the residents individually who would just be in the paper so it's an it's an interesting conversation because it's It's something that's been in the books for a long time, and I've kind of wondered it myself in terms of why we do the CUP. I see the pros and cons to it, and really it's just a community decision at that point because it makes sense to continue doing it knowing the path that we're going down regarding these other accessory structures that are being habitated.
The guest house is a separate structure, right?
I mean it it identifies the square footage But it doesn't say whether it has to be attached or detached. So it could be both could be there Okay, I mean either or
I guess if you have a large property and you already have a guest house or a second dwelling unit and You have a junior ADU
No, it's located within an accessory structure.
Is that what I'm saying?
Yes
It's it's living quarters within an accessory structure so that's not Attached That's accessory to the main structure
a guest house
a guest house. Sorry definition.
Yeah,
yeah, I'm just saying it's not an attachment It's a separate
benefit really is to any neighbors that Want to ensure that the property isn't intensified beyond what's allowed for living units. Yeah, so how many have a big property? I have a guess or I have an ADU. I have a junior ADU and now I want to put in a guest house right? And so if the CUP is still attached to the guest house because we you can do a deed restriction so it doesn't turn into a third
Yeah, the only way that we would really know whether or not they've done that is if we have a whistleblower We're not gonna go out and look for it.
Right
check in on them
I guess my point is they can do it anyway. I mean there it's still The guest house is still Only supposed to be a guest house And so the whistleblower can happen to can do it whether it's permitted by right or a CUP
Are we are we okay with? You know, R04 is very low density. Like are we okay with that? I mean maybe it's like are we saying to change this to P? Right.
Just on the bigger lots.
Well yeah, well maybe or the opposite. I guess it's kind of a question. I know it's a bigger lot so obviously you can handle more stuff but it's also supposed Density like is it better to put it in a higher density zone? Is it better to have it as of right in a Lower density film where there's more space for it and kind of can be you know, tucked away or hidden more or not You should each of those be kind of approached the same way or to see if he still makes sense for some of them I
Are you applying the urbanist approach or are you applying the rural? I mean, it's kind of leaving up
for a discussion.
That is that is the discussion because initially looking at it seemed to be the obvious choice if you're going to peel back the layer of regulation that would be in the R04.
Right.
But then you also look at this slippery slope of the density is meant to be and intended to be low and should remain low. So then are the other zones which are residential and are meant to handle more density The real intended target,
right? Which I mean I could see that because I could see there being advantages to you know for walkability You know livability of even a small town like Ojai having more density towards the center is it Potentially a positive thing. I mean, that's obviously a big discussion point but Possibly I mean the advantages I guess of it in the r04 zone or whatever is it?
you know, I think that there's a lot of forms of You know shared living situations or like more kind of communal situations that people who come to Ojai are excited about it interested in and are positive for what I is and how it exists, so That's an argument. You know for it to make sense in those spaces is to give more opportunity for those to be you know, we're not talking about obviously you never know it's about the people but more to be more of a Shared, you know, group situation than a bunch of rental units.
Are you looking for a resolution on this tonight? Or are you just looking to stir the pot a little bit, get some discussion? Where are you? What is your expectation here?
Let me remind the commission of the recommendation. Review and discuss sections of Title 10 located within the OMS code and provide feedback. And it says, and I quote, review, discuss, feedback only. So if there's no resolution and you want to continue or you want to kick the can down the road, I'm totally open to those discussion pieces. If there's a little bit more research on one or two of these items, absolutely. But I will caution that if we start looking at three or four of these items, I will absolutely need one of you to be assigned to helping with this.
So just know that the asks may have a
repercussion. Suddenly it's very quiet up here.
Well, the nice thing is so you do have one commissioner who is not here tonight. You could easily start assigning certain activities to that individual. That's
right. If you're not
We still need someone else.
Yeah, I look I think it would make sense to have depending on the number of Deeper dives that you wanted to do It may make sense to have two
yeah For this type of thing I mean obviously then it would go we'd look at it and then it would come before and there be opportunity for the community to Speak on it
Yeah, I mean this is I think it's a policy issue because if you really do weigh the pros and the cons and maybe When we do things like this making the switch if we do right or recommend it is Put the pros and cons out next to each
other. Yes, which would be exactly a good exercise. Yeah. Yeah, mm-hmm. I agree
1:15 – 1:2040 turns
Agreed
so that's to say that we should look at guest houses Yeah
Okay, we've got crop production and animal keeping And guest houses and we're on page the first page Of 63 just so that the audience knows I
don't want to give up on your you're just your questions I sort of have the same one about the mobile home outside of a park
Yeah, I just didn't understand why but
think
would be permitted In R1 and nowhere else. So I think we should discuss
that. That's a state law issue because we have to allow them in a residential zone.
Yeah, I think there actually is new state law. It may have come on longer than a few years
ago. So you're doing the basic minimum?
Minimum when it's in the R1.
Yeah, which
single family
so that like they can come in roll it and do They can set it down without a permanent foundation. I mean it still has to pass the state
It's supposed to apply as a mobile home, which is the definition. Yeah, there's HUD standards when you're looking at a mobile home. Eight feet wide, 40 feet long.
Is it different from a recreational vehicle? It is. That's
what it says.
That's on wheels that Drives into a vacant Part of a parcel and is there sometimes
sure
Like I believe it can stay on its chassis, you know It just has to be secured a certain way
has to be permanent. Yeah Yes definition mobile home a trailer transportable in one or more sections that is certified under the National Manufacturer Housing Construction Safety Standards Act Which is 8 feet or more in width 40 feet or more in length for a total of 320 square feet and it's built on a permanent chassis With or without a permanent foundation and not including recreational vehicle commercial coach or factory-built housing Mobile home on a permanent foundation is included And not including without a permanent foundation and not including recreational vehicle commercial coach
So that means if it's on a permanent foundation, it can go in any residential zone because it is considered. Residential, so that's why we have
it's a trailer, I think that's why. So it's not it can't be a recreational vehicle. It's something you can pull, but it can't be erected, can't be a mobile home that you're that you drive a motorhome.
Yeah, right. Right.
You have to be able to pull it right. Trailer offices
on the keep going on the definition
A mobile home on a permanent foundation is included, but that's a mobile home. Oh under the single family residential. So it's a single family dwelling if it's on a foundation? Yes. That's my point. But it's still a trailer just to answer I think Judy's question was what about a recreational vehicle and no that does not count under this.
They can we do have those throughout town with a motorized vehicle, but they can drop. They can pull a trailer in and drop it and
occupy it. Yeah.
Again, these don't make a lot of sense to me.
Well, I think it's like you know this it's like the Airstream is the kind of classic example, I guess, you know? You just I mean it is, I guess it's funny like once again why has it chosen to be in the R1 might be the question. Because that actually seems like it would be better on a different
one. Well
the R 1 is going to be, it's going to be in the driveway right?
Not necessarily.
It has to meet all the setbacks, all the zoning standards. You know it's just it's a building code issue more than anything else so I mean we have these all sprinkled through town right you know there's one on El Paseo there's two on El Paseo there's one on Oak okay so
on Oak
Okay, so if you have to have it in one of the zones which zone would we ideally want it in
I Mean Well, hold on. Let's let's first start with what the maybe there's a state regulation that doesn't even give us that option Right, so then we're
changing That's something to research yeah,
yep, but I think it's worth yeah It's worth looking at it because it seems like
1:20 – 1:2632 turns
That could be updated. I mean, the law of the state law might be updated as well.
Yeah, it means that it's on a single family lot and you can just have an Airstream with nothing else on it or one lot, which is a single family. I don't
know that the Airstream that that sounds like a trailer. Yeah.
It's not 40 feet long.
Right? That's not the definition. That's a that's a regular trailer recreational trailer. That'S not a mobile home.
Yeah, I guess we have to look into the standards of 1970.
That's in the research
column. I don't think we can make a lot of these changes and avoid without understanding all the
ins
and
outs. For sure.
Well pros and cons again questions. Yeah, I Think the first thing is The litmus test of state law Regarding it because I have a feeling HUD has something to say about this and I have a feeling there's government code that does as well Yes, and you could get there's yeah must be said I'm sure You guys want to talk about mobile home parks No, no. Okay, we can
move on to the next one
There's
a size limitation in terms of the minimum and I was looking at our zoning code and I can't think of a property that would actually qualify so it's effectively requiring a CUP for a site that wouldn't Yeah, moving down the list multifamily residential. There's so few R3 lots in the city. There's only a handful. Well pause that conversation because I have a feeling that With a lot of with some of the rules that have come that are coming down the pipeline that have just hit The road, I'm trying to understand there may be an action item coming before this body to address Address some of those rules and I'm just sorting through them right now. So your r3 may end up Growing as a as one of the solutions that I'm thinking about so just
this good amount are too. So Okay
Uses
So across the board in the R's, single family dwellings. Single family dwelling as a permitted use across the board makes sense right? Utility communication facilities you can't really touch that so there's federal law and then it sprinkles down to state law and we actually have specific shot clock requirements so I wouldn't touch it
Like the tree cell tower.
Yeah We've been lucky enough at this point and those come forward they just tend to be either on roofs so they're completely shield Okay, you have a freestanding one that was proposed I want to say 2014 2015 which was highly contentious
Well, we do have a tree in town
Yeah, it's on state property though.
It came before the Planning Commission.
Years ago yeah but you know what's funny is that I don't ever hear anybody talking about it.
I don't think people notice it.
Yeah well it's hidden amongst other trees so it kind of
works.
Okay can we go to the next commercial? Yes okay All right, so we're looking at table 2-4. And remember what I said in the beginning? I did the litmus test between the uses that are identified within the use chart and whether or not they match up or have some sort of correlating definition within the definition section. And guess what? The first three that are identified here do not have a definition that's identified within our definitions.
Agriculture processing
vegetable packaging and shipping is not defined. But to be fair, I've yet to have a question on that one. That's not to say it couldn't happen in the future. Clothing and fabric production not identified as a definition. Cosmetic and pharmaceuticals not identified as a definition.
The first one kind of goes to where we started this conversation, which is that we have agricultural facilities. Is it possible that those actions are happening? Oh, I guess it's the next section. In
the AG section? Yeah so that's the one that we talk about next. There is...I think it's actually the first one. Is it the same one? No, it's not. So it starts...so the special purpose starts with animal keeping and then jumps into crop production and horticulture which does have a definition
1:27 – 1:3671 turns
We'll come back but I think it's the fact that it's not on that list is you're kind of to your point Maybe it's later on Yeah, I don't think it is. But yeah, like I don't see it anyways
What I'm so what I'm getting at is it's the it's kind of the setting the table piece and It might actually make sense in this case to put together some sort of a definition for something like agricultural processing and vegetable packaging and shipping. The seven years that I've been here, I haven't had that question come up but that's not to say it won't happen tomorrow as soon as they get into the office at 805, right?
Yeah, it's about being prepared.
Exactly!
That's what planning is.
Do other cities have those definitions already pre-packaged for you?
So that would be an excellent research to look into. And I wouldn't look any further than Oxnard or Ventura, Ventura County, Camarillo maybe not necessarily far east as like Thousand Oaks or Simi Valley but areas like that for sure they've already got agriculture living within so they have to have something that we can at least start with. Yeah, yeah. Page is turning. I mean, any other conversation?
Do we have an MPD zone anywhere?
Yes. Yes. OK, sure. Yeah, that area is the southern tip. I think it's a southern brand circle. Yeah. Yeah.
Because right now it shows this M1.
Yeah It got fixed but the map didn't get fixed
Well, then that tells me that that so that was it was fixed after the map after 2008 yes, okay So
Yeah,
can I just something that's been bugging me for the last seven years but I haven't had the direction to do it. I know we're having discussion tonight and there's not supposed to be any direction but in a very future meeting I think you're gonna see an updated zoning map
I don't think, that doesn't need direction. No it doesn't but I'm just... That was part of the update. It should have been updated immediately. Yeah. If the code changed saying that this area had changed, it's just an administrative mapping issue.
Which requires GIS which we do not have.
Right.
That's part of the problem.
So you could pay somebody an hour to get that done? I don't think it needs our permission. It's already been approved
Yeah, it's an administrative piece that's true to that point yeah, so Just know that that's something that's been bugging me for the last seven years
Problem-handled
problem solved
The
Yeah, I was noticing on the map there is no MPD listed on the zoning classifications on the map itself.
Well, I guess I have to kind of go back and forth. I guess my only questions would be about on this first section would be... I mean, I get it. Printing and publishing and furniture.
Oh, one of the questions I had was the 500 foot rule.
Right?
Because most of all of our M1 is within 500 feet of residential or quite close.
Not all.
It's not all but I mean a lot of it is.
It isn't interesting when we do the exercise, it's very interesting because what it does is it pushes any of those uses that are supposed to be outside of that 500 foot within Tenant spaces that are at the edge or closer to the Bryant circle area and not necessarily Towards the edges. Yeah, so it it it creates this barrier Yeah, it's been a weird exercise. We've done it a couple times It's just
Is it because those might have more like toxins or noise? Is
that the assumption? I'm not sure why the 500 foot was put in there.
That's what I wanted to talk about, because I know for sure we've got some food production, like we have the granola girl, you know, Lark Allen Farms. That doesn't smell. You know, it's really low impact.
Yeah. Like printing and publishing
yeah, I mean so how you know We should be allowing things like that businesses like that to come in to them one. We want that kind of business.
Yeah,
so They possibly can't go in to all of those That back up to back buck board
Mm-hmm,
you know and subtle Lane settle mountain properties. I Don't know and there's a lot of businesses there because there's a lot of small R&D
Yeah, well this might be a very unpopular thing to say but I'm just also kind of curious about it all in its relationship to the VMU which has the potential for live work and light things like a workshop and a residence. Or printing, you know a bookmaker in a residence let's say or some of these things that actually are on the three.
Yeah I agree with
that
might be appropriate
and allow for you know An interesting kind of diversity in it like because that's like a live work as a way of obviously, you know affording To do it. Yeah
financial Columns should have CPS
that
least yeah
Yeah, well maybe not for like agricultural process maybe though
No, yeah
I mean like maybe not for every single one
right
but definitely for some of them It seems like there should be the opportunity to Have the discussion
Yeah, like I could see a small clothier. You know someone who's right lives there We use specialty yeah, I mean just makes I don't know a gown for the Yeah
Yeah, I mean so in the VMU there are uses where there's a mom-and-pop that does ceramics right but and that one is classified as as manufacturing right so
Well I think VMU specifically allows, I noticed ceramics and pottery but not Pottery shops and sales, but maybe not manufacturing. That's what it is. Pottery shops and sales. Typically pottery shops... Oh like when does it
start to get, when
do
we start to see it getting activated? Yeah
in retail so it's allowed pottery shops and sales is permitted but the manufacturing of that is not permitted which is...
Right it's more about like a shop yeah not a store which is Make fine, but it seems like there's a There's an argument to be made for the actual thing to be made.
Yeah, I agree. Yeah Why that would be
CUP?
Why is a theater or auditorium not permitted in c1 I Mean it's kind of where I would expect it to be and
And
is
so you want the pros and the cons to that?
Yes
Okay, so I'll give a couple of them.
Okay,
so when you don't allow a theater or Production to go in the one that's there becomes the only one so it basically reduces competition The pro to that are the con to that is When you don't allow competition You basically create a pedestal for that particular use. So it's a slippery slope, and that's the way I've seen it. Yeah, the one theater we have here which is an historic theater that's been around at least in the county, I think it's the oldest if not in state
1:36 – 1:4760 turns
So it's legal law
informing?
Yes.
But it's been out of business for over a year, so we should have shut it down.
No, they were still doing... I know you're going into the six-month
piece.
The reality is that for that one... Okay, I can't talk about it anymore. She's gonna get mad at me.
Oh okay. I was teasing by the way. That's the last thing I'd want to do.
There would be space out on East Ojai Avenue Wouldn't there be space for a theater or an auditorium and see one out on?
East kind of space for different types of uses out there. The most obvious one would be a bowling alley But yeah, there could be there should could be an opportunity out there I
So, I don't think that should be not permitted
in the community center
Yeah, look if this body is interested and in turning the what page is that on by the way
we're on 10 of 63 Okay about the middle
Permitted or CUP
For theater. I would say permitted
So it's gonna require design review regardless so you're gonna have conditions, it'll be before this body regardless. Yeah
And community center the same I
mean don't see why we wouldn't want I mean do you feel like it's taken away from commercial is that the concern?
So Here's the yes to the theater because what does the theater doing its generating sales tax Community Center It's taking away an opportunity for sales tax generator. I don't think community centers through their memberships create much in terms of retail unless you're selling a lot of t-shirts or a lot of memorabilia through a community center. Is that all it's taxable?
Well the C1 is, that is the, that's the sales tax generator piece so you've always got to be... That's the thing that always is discussed
first.
It's the whole reason why when there was a conversation at one point about, and this was through the general plan effort about bringing on residential into the C-1. It was discussed in terms of being considered and we had a workshop for it but then when we actually looked at what that meant, we were potentially losing a significant amount of property that's still check generator.
We've already got a lot of area that's already allowing for multifamily so...
That's where the VMU is interesting.
Yep.
We'll get to that one. Yeah, okay. Oh I guess I was wondering that.
Why would auto sales need a CUP but not auto parts sales space?
Auto sales, where are you at here? Auto parts sales. Okay so you're on page 11 of 63. Auto parts sales and auto sales. So there's one rental new vehicles.
Yeah, the CEP you
want to help to regulate because there's gonna be the primary and then there's gonna be a bunch of little accessories likely attached to that. I mean look no further than what was in Ojai for the longest time along West Ojai on the south side. We're still sorting through what that building is going to look like in the future in terms of its uses
To go back to above just for the VMU and single-family dwelling. That's just kind of, I mean it's confused me because we've talked about it before Lucas and you've explained that well once it becomes a single family dwelling it takes on that characteristic and therefore it's like very hard to kind of do anything related to what the VMU outlines After that moment in a, you know city where lots is seeing. I mean just like if we want VMU should be we should have VMU if we want to go families have single family like it feels like it's like not really a useful man can see how it's useful but it's like it's not quite doing maybe what it's doing or it's like letting us be a little lazy, maybe and how we're thinking about the map.
And your point on laziness is probably on cue. It is interesting because that was the first project that I remember coming forward as a VMU discussion piece, I was like oh well. What do we got going on in our VMU? Because it's mixed use. And then I saw that single family isn't allowed to use, and I was like well that doesn't make any sense. Just as looking at it from an urban planning standpoint, it doesn't make sense period.
Yeah
you if you're looking at VMU You're looking at is a transitional period not as a period to continue that use moving forward but as a period by which That use will eventually just be eliminated by By the years right by The properties changing hands and then being modified over time. Maybe it takes 50 years, right? I want to say this is the first city that I've seen that I've worked in maybe not the first city I've seen the first day I've worked in where single-family dwellings were permitted use within a mixed-use Designated area, right so
Your point your own point. I mean if we if it if it wants to be there in some way I feel like maybe it should be more of like a CUP or something, but it feels counterproductive Or intuitive
yeah That would be the like splitting hairs between doing that and just saying it's not allowed because then by that point You're creating a non-conforming status right which
wishes there's gonna be plenty of it
Yeah, the non-conforming status what I'm finding even in like for instance the C1 area on Montgomery. It's created a bit of a headache for individuals trying to refinance and do improvements to the property.
Yeah, I guess it's like used in other or I've seen it it's like feel like it's used too This is fine for now, but then if you know things are going to change.
Yeah, you do a CUP in that fashion and I think you probably control it In a good way. Yeah, where it takes take some of the staying away from it being family and starts introducing really kind of the mixed-use component Which is really what's intended for the VMU across the board?
That would be my
I mean any any urban planner will that that's looking at and a Mixed use component regardless of its intent is meant to be a transitional period. I mean It's spelled out Why would we allow a single family?
I think it. I think the market takes care of that though, I mean We we have vacant commercial all over the place in commercial zones so I Mean I think for that neighborhood especially which is mainly Matilija ha Aliso oak between Blanche and What is that
Montgomery
and then
we have some
south
on Bald in that
neighborhood
as well. I don't know, I think the market takes care of it. Like when there's more demand for commercial and mixed use, you know, it changes over. We've seen it on Kenyatta and Matilija that was a single family house. It was designed in VMU and the building was designed to be commercial residential split It was sold, family took it over as a single-family house.
Sold again and then it became commercial. So I like the flexibility in that zone to have it commercial, residential both and it's starting to happen more. The one on Ventura and Matalaha Has we've seen a couple change of uses there and it's starting to Multiply I think a little bit very very slowly, but it's happening But I think the market is taking care of it. If if you can be successful with a commercial business there It's good. You know, it'll start happening. It'll start changing over but I don't think you can force commercial to go in there and Knowing, you know, we have empty commercial all over the place.
Right.
You know, in our commercial zones it's just people, you know, things are changing. We're buying things online, commercial spaces or...
Yeah I guess I'm imagining that the idea to some degree with like a mixed use is that you're creating a residential and a commercial use on the same
property simultaneously. Yeah and that's happening in a couple of those areas. I mean, so I don't know. I kind of like keeping it as is with allowing single-family or letting it morph into a mixed use or commercial.
So if it's a residential use, if it has a residential use no matter what but if it has a single family residential use and they want to use it as commercial then because codified as a design
review. Yeah, it requires design reviews to become before this body.
Even if they're just like don't do anything and they did want to?
The change in the use necessitates the discussion. Do you say why is that? No,
I didn't. If they didn't make any changes right and they had it that's a simple zone clearance isn't it if there's they're not making any
give the hypothetical example again
So a hypothetical would be there's a single family residence, you know, and they want to convert the inside. Nothing is different on the outside. They have enough parking or they're close enough to parking where they're exempt. There's really no need to come to the Planning Commission. It's just a simple zone clearance.
1:48 – 1:5425 turns
I actually think it requires a DRP.
For what? Because DRP is specifically limited to physical attributes.
Yeah, but the VMU has a specific category. Let me look it up for you and then we can have that discussion hold on
okay Because if something is permitted by right, that's the whole point. It's permitted. And so you come in, if you meet all the criteria of that zone it should be a simple zone clearance.
Well that's what my assumption was also I think. So that's why I'm kind of asking.
So still within the vein of the VMU, I'm looking at whether or not there's qualifying. I can do this right? Okay. Afflicability 10 to 2003 talks about the following proposed projects that be subject to design review by the commission. The first one speaks to single family zones And those single family zones having a two-story component to it. The second one talks about all applications for construction or reconstruction of any building or structure requiring conditional use permit, minor variance plan development permit or variance.
Three is any construction whether or not a building permit is required which affects the exterior elevation of any existing building or structure other than single families single story. Four says a change in use of an existing commercial and industrial building which will require additional parking. Five is any exterior alteration, whether or not a building permit is required that modifies the structure architectural details or visual characteristics such as paint color surface texture grading paving and the C1 BP and VMU.
provided however that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall apply not apply to routine maintenance of existing structures so okay so I think five is what because I'm not gonna read B is there's a BC and D but I think five is what we're yeah
let me read it again
yeah yeah I think you're I think you're on to something Any exterior alteration, whether or not a building permit is required that modifies the structure architectural details or visual characteristics such as paint color surface texture grading and paving or any other property located within the C-1BP and VMU zones.
So I mean this is probably a moot point because if you're gonna change it, if you're gonna convert a house into commercial, you're probably gonna change something. You know? You're probably going to change out a window or doors or whatever. But
let's say you
didn't. Let's say you didn't. Even what you're reading nothing triggers design review.
I
think
if you walk the fine line, I think you're right. Yeah.
But I think that would be rare but...
I can't think of an example because typically there is some sort of exterior change as minimal as it is and this is written very intentional so that it does rise to a level of either commission or at least director level. Not at zone plans.
I have a I'm remembering part of where this question came about for me, which was that when we were talking about I think it was something else at one point. It was that if Something is like next to you a single-family residential Because I think it was I think it was over talking about South Fulton maybe or something it was like if
we were having the conversation
Just about the regulations around noise. Some regulations that might be next to a single-family residential are therefore then at the restriction of the single family residential and not even if it's in a manufacturing zone or something like that, but it's next to. So that's I guess one limiting thing with having this single family next to... It limits what the... Which I guess maybe goes back to the start which is maybe why These just aren't on the list because if you can have a single family next to it, then yeah. You as soon as you can't really, uh, there's going to be a lot of issues with trying to allow somebody to have anything of manufacturing style. So I think it's, I guess it's like, if we want that to feel like it's possible, then we might have to think about how the single family intermeshes with it because nothing to say that couldn't be a multifamily.
I mean like two living It's just whether yeah, so I don't know that's kind of I guess this is this little like
That was
the
conversation you're remembering on South Fulton was To cover what had initially been discussed from a general plan update standpoint. It was putting to bed Kind of a larger conversation on on whether or not to pursue changes in that area
Yeah, no for sure. It brought up this other element that then I think at the same time we were talking about the VMU for some reason but it was like my first So that's Mike I guess my question is like so we started by saying oh Maybe we should have CUPs for some of these things for the VMU But then when we get to the single-family residential realize that well, maybe there maybe it is still fine And that's part of this CUP. It's like what is this next to a single residential in the VMU.
The good test you could use for VMN, I think someone said this earlier maybe not maybe I was just thinking it is maybe in the VMU everything should be a CUV. Because if you do that that's kind of applying the urbanist approach where you have control but then you also are like it's not saying it's not allowed it's saying you've got to go through a process and then vet it and then just be held to those standards.
That's interesting
1:54 – 1:5942 turns
If you inevitably can't do a VMU next to a single family home,
then you're pushing
the VMU.
You may get it smaller and smaller.
Yeah, that might have been an oversight or maybe we're not interpreting it accurately.
I think we're on point here. It's just—I think we're having a deeper conversation.
Isn't a single-family residence in a VM U accepting the— Maybe
that's what we say.
I think that's what's going on. I mean, you're not going to buy a single-family residence in a VMU if you're worried about the commercial store next door
Well, I guess you'd have to that would have to sort of be Outlined somewhere to a degree there's something different about a single family. I In a VMU, right?
Yeah.
You'd have to redefine it.
Yeah if we're comparing the context of just VMU in general versus the stuff on Fulton, South Fulton. South Fulton is more industrial in terms of how that operates and then potentially as a negative influence if you were to turn that around and turning into something that was more residential because residential now has Specific that's kind of the context there specific holdings for single-family versus what the industrial intentions are
Yeah
Well, if you look in the definitions of VMU and single family in the land use element and also zoning ordinance in the I Don't have it in front of me but It's the intro It has what the character of each zone
is.
And so it does talk about VMU being mixed and more lively.
Are you done with this one?
Are we talking about the multifamily?
Can we move on?
It's to say that it would be interesting to consider VMU as CUP.
CUP, right.
Across
the board.
I think that... We'd have to add something on the single family home in order for them not to be so close, right? Some type of restriction where they...
No, maybe the CUP takes care of that though.
I'm going to add that to the list, but I just want you to know that we are on a list of... It's
better to make a bigger list and then edit if you have to. That's true.
We don't want to say why didn't we think of? Could you look at page 12?
And for the record, I wouldn't say CUP all the way down the line. I mean there's definitely
things on this
list
that you should not have in VMU. But maybe everything that's already either a P or a CUP would be a CUP and then there maybe are some things that might want to consider. Yeah
which ones rise to CUP? Which ones that are identified as not permitted rise to CUP or remain where they are currently today?
There's some things yeah, cuz like an art gallery should definitely be a P Permitted right and the only reason why we would ever see an art gallery is if they change the outside of The building.
Yeah You
know because there's it's a perfect fit Just think
about the culture of Ojai. We are art, why would we create a restriction to something that we want to embrace? That doesn't make any
sense. So a lot of these I think still should remain P's and it's design review only.
Which is actually a good point, okay. So you talking about the art piece takes me back to making sure that the changes that we're having the kind of initial discussion on, we've got to vet that with the general plan to ensure that each of those elements and more specifically the land use element has specific ties so we're not necessarily going against the grain if that makes sense? And we'll have to do that regardless as we dive into this deeper.
Okay, page 12. Moving right along. I am looking at the top section in the M1 category. It's permitting gun shops and meat markets, and not permitting a pet store or garden supply. And I'm just wondering why those decisions would be reasonable?
Okay so you're talking about pet store... Yeah.
1:59 – 2:0436 turns
Well, I think pet stores you want to keep them into retail. In the commercial? Yeah in the commercial zone. You know like by Bonds there's one and Wachter's. I don't know. A nursery? I can't imagine having a gun shop next to it. Well, I guess I could of like the—I don't know if Ace Hardware ever carried guns at
any point. It's C1 as well. It just also an M1. We
want to protect our M1 zones for light industrial and I don't see a gun shop or a meat market as qualifying for that.
Okay, so just so you know from an M1 standpoint that tends to be the area where your things are going to have some smells and some noises that aren't as desirable. Meat markets are definitely one of those.
But it's on the C1 as
well.
So I think it is kind of...
We want to save those for industrial possibilities. We have so little land available for industry in this town that to let
a
meat market or gun shop go in doesn't make sense, or a pottery shop or sales or restaurant.
But I think if you there might be like a How you look at it? If if you're allowed to let's say Have your food and beverage product manufacturing in the m1 You're a small company. You want to have like direct sales from that same location That might be why some of those things are like I don't know how we describe that in here, but that would be the place that would make sense to me. I think you're right. I think we want to make sure it would be like attached to some sort of manufacturing.
I would want pottery shops, restaurants removed.
But a pottery shop might be making, you know, it might be manufacturing large scale... It says shops and sales. Right, right. But it might be the front of house of a big pottery manufacturing facility in the back. You know, I've been to, you know, smoked fish from a fish factory. And I think it should say
that.
Maybe, yeah.
And I think cafes where people work are good. It's a good idea.
Well that you're saying, a free standing cafe. It's like someone wants to be able to get lunch in Bryant Circle and not have to go all the way
downtown.
Or walking distance. There is something to be said about that and in larger cities you do see this folded in 100% because you will have that opportunity. Our area, I agree with you that it is a sacred area and that it needs to be treated that way. And certainly we need to look at it with the highest of litmus tests.
So I would put a CUP or something there that I wouldn't just put permitted? Yeah,
maybe. Maybe. Yeah, I could see that. Because then at least that's the way you force it. That's why you say, okay well, okay you want to have a shop but are you manufacturing that here on site? Cuz that's what we want. We want
manufacturing- I just wanna do a shop. Go downtown.
Yeah.
So you're pushing it to the areas that you would more want it. So there's the pro. The pro of that is, is that you're creating a process by which you could easily market and say like someone comes to me and says hey I want to do this in the M1 be like it's a CUP but guess what? Along Ojai Avenue guess what? It's a permitted use Yeah, go talk to this person. There's a vacant lot right here,
right? Rents are gonna be cheaper and
rents are gonna be cheaper. That's true. So if you do It's it's a deterrent because it's not guaranteed Right from a design review standpoint It's still not guaranteed because there's specific findings have to be made but the litmus test is much lower
I'm okay with it as is the restaurant part I do think it's interesting that it says no outdoor dining in
the M-1.
Which one?
Where is this one? No outdoor dining, yeah just right below. Yeah.
Right
below
cafe,
restaurant cafe outdoor dining.
Which you would think there might be outdoor dining.
In the M- 1.
2:05 – 2:1038 turns
It probably does make sense for a CP look Yeah, there needs to be something there yeah Okay, so here okay but think about it Here's my pitch and then it's that's all I'm gonna say the whole reason for that is I Oh wait, it just isn't allowed in the M-1. Okay so that's different okay so never mind I'm not gonna do the pitch. The pitch is being put to the shelf.
So hold on up above we were looking at meat markets and gun shops where we're saying CEPs for both of those in the M1?
I think a gun shop should not be permitted in an M1 you're not making them
probably not
You're not serving lunch with them.
The ammunition pieces requires a lot of there's a lot of regulation that goes along with that
you might be firing them.
That's the only thing I can think is like is it like a testing area?
I haven't.
I'm not
one lately so I don't know if that's typical but
I would be cautious in getting rid of it in the
M1. I would put it to a CUP at the very
least. I think CUP is the better pinch versus just saying no.
Everything
that I've questioned in M1, I would move to a CUP.
What about meat markets?
I think CUP
Let me just give you an update on this page. I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 of these uses that are identified on page 12 of 63 that do not have definitions.
Might be wise to get those at some point, I guess.
Well, I think what I'm getting at—and I'll keep saying this and I'll keep mentioning it—I think there's value in evaluating the need for the definitions. And there may not be a need for some definitions in some of these cases after having the discussion and looking at it further. But I do think it's worth having the discussion. For consideration for the discussion All right, anything else on this page are we ready to
move on to the next page yes Alright so 13 of 63 table 2-4 It starts with maintenance and repair client site services That's just in the M1 MPD.
Why would veterinarian The last one be not permitted in commercial they're already there
They're in the BP zone,
mm-hmm Yep
Is it Matilija? No, Ojai Village Vet is BP. Ojai Village Vet. That's business professionals on.
And actually there was revisions recently that came before this body a few years back. Judy I think you were here for that one.
Revision
to what? They did an addition in the BP. And it required a amendment to their CEP.
I don't
remember
that. Ojai Village
Vet? No, it's the one on Bryant Street. Is that Ojai Village Vet?
No, that's Matilla.
That's Matilija. But that's permitted by
right.
It's in the BP. I'm sorry, it's not identified as BP. It's identified as
M1.
Oh, it didn't require CP. It was a permitted use so it was just a revision to their design.
2:10 – 2:1521 turns
I had one question. It's more for table 2.5 in a way or it's, I guess it's a question about the, I guess the commercial zone in particular or maybe it's a larger question. There is... Maybe we say, I don't know if we save it for the next thing. It's just that there's nothing about, there's nowhere that there are zero like lot line buildings or like setbacks.
Yet there are obviously a lot of buildings in Ojai that have no setbacks and have no lot lines. And I wonder in like the you know where particularly along you know Ojai Avenue it's this kind of commercial corridor Yeah, I don't know It feels like an interesting thing. It feels like there's no provision for it at all Unless I'm missing it.
No you're right the c1 requires a front yard setback of 10 feet. It's very
Minimal but
or significant well see one requires Front setback oh yeah ten feet
But it also requires aside And I mean we have a you know, it's for I just bring it. It's something that you know, we can jump to 2.6 but I just it was on my mind to talk about at some point if you're going to talk about
What I think would be I think we should probably separate that one out. Yeah, and we can bring that forward I think it's good to bring some examples of stuff That's existing as a non-conformity piece and then talk about I mean there's projects on a regular basis that are in conversation in the c1 and The first question they ask is why is there a 10-foot setback in the front yard? That's weird And I'm like, oh no, there isn't then. I love my looking like there is yeah, I'll be darned
in the most No setbacks and Noah and no side lots and no anything
Well, and what does the C-1 say? It identifies the need and interest in the parking not being in the front but actually being tucked in the back or at least outside of the visibility of the streets.
Although it does provide opportunity for outdoor dining like Topa Topa, right? True.
They can, it's not saying they can't set back 10 feet but give them the opportunity to be at the lot line and hold a street front. Is sort of
like his eyes on the street. That's actually a good point as a pro. Yeah, I Will be asking someone to help with that one specifically because that's that's kind of a big one That's the big one to sort through especially if we just focus on the c1 as a discussion Just there is a lot of interesting conversations with
yeah, I mean, I think it thinking about it mostly is like You know as you head east and things are are bound to start happening eventually out there. Yeah, what's that going to look like? Because it's more like this stuff is done obviously you know but what what's that how is it then gonna transition into the Eastern Commercial Corridor that's it zoned for but yet to be sort of fully realized
And it's, it is kind of interesting because if you look at just the areas where C-1 exists and lives. It works as it exists but does all of it meeting the current standards? The answer is no. But I can't tell you...I don't have an example of a zoning district where every single property that I'm looking at meets the current standards. No. That's just not the way zoning regulations operate. Right, so I think it's definitely meriting a discussion. If this body is interested in that, I will be assigning someone or asking someone to help out with that.
Yeah, I mean there is also an opportunity on the zoning map we have 1.5 FAR overlay district and you could separate out by zone some areas
where
you want zero lot line yeah which is intensified downtown and as you move out.
Yeah, that's a good
point.
Well but maybe park a discussion piece for that in the future.
Just I guess it's a map thing. Just the first thing is that on here, it says A is for agriculture and on the zoning map, it says AG is for agriculture.
Yep. That's noted. That needs to be corrected.
2:15 – 2:2036 turns
We like A more than AG. Which way are you going? Sounds like it's easier to change it actually in Title 10 maybe than the map. Maybe, maybe.
All right where are we moving on to here? Are we hitting a wall? Judy, you look like you've hit a
wall. I'm enjoying the conversation. How does
the open space have home occupation and residential accessory uses as permitted?
21.
What am I missing there?
That is an excellent question. So open space, I think if you're looking at your zoning map, I think there's only one area in the very northern portion of Ojai that has open space, right? It's that very large swath. Of course, that's in a hillside area.
You're asking how it's allowed? Is that what you're asking?
Close to the left but yeah up there too. I don't know.
You're allowed a caretaker employees quarters, so I suppose that employee can have a home occupation?
Well OK, server open space. I'm only seeing
farmworker housing
as a CEP. But you're right, I mean a single family is oh wait. Which has happened to a new place. Yeah.
I'm going
But the where's the single-family or whereas like the other
single family isn't identified in here
instead It's it's
it's baked into the farmworker housing. I see
residential uses.
Yeah There isn't there is an identification for single-family
Housing, I see from worker housing and then if you get that then you can do a home occupation
If there is a single-family house up there it is legal nonconforming potentially
I would just say nonconforming. I'm not sure that we could actually find evidence that it would be legal, right? Yeah. Legal nonconforming to your point would be at some point we had actually allowed it and then changed the designation. I question whether we would even have evidence.
Before we move on to that, I would like some confirmation that all of these retail uses in M1 get at least changed to a CUP if
not. So it's a blanket statement just like we did for the VMU?
It's a blanket statement yes. I would like that to be much more restrictive than it currently is based on the limited amount of manufacturing land that we have
Commissioner did clarify that for the VMU we don't know if we want to blanket CEP. Oh, that's true
Yes, I write that down though. I did write that down.
Okay good But you want every every sort of clearly commercial use to be a CEP in them one
at least yes I just don't think that retail sales in and of itself belongs.
Well, here's the fun thing about that when we bring something back for a discussion, we'll have it redlined. So we'll have it redlined so when we bring something back, we'll take a look at our work and see if it's as masterful as we had thought when we were conversating about
tonight. It's going to be a very controversial one.
Yeah, yeah.
Possibly I remember there are some retail
shops currently there
that are very successful.
2:20 – 2:2642 turns
Yeah The walkthrough in Kent Hall remember when all of the Zones were being discussed this was a few
years
ago
you're talking about for the general plan
yeah,
yeah when we had that we had a workshop there and late 2022 I
At that point Yes, it was
definitely discussed it's one of the it's actually ended up tearing off to the discussion for It was the first Discussion on on the Fulton Street. That's where that first came up
just because something is successful there and Is not a reason to allow more of it to occur there in my view
Yeah It's it is probably bigger question of like what are we doing to Inspire manufacturing to be happening, you know because I'm sure some of these as we say some of these retail Activities are happening there because it's like cheap rent probably compared they could afford to have a Retail space downtown, you know
That's that's what I would like to see that
and before We make recommendations. Maybe we get more data of what is available how many empty Manufacture R&D units are there? Mm-hmm. Yes if we have a whole, you know Bryant circle full of empty R&d units
You know, what's interesting is I have a new program that allows for me to collect that kind of
data.
So
oh, that's great.
My first litmus test on using it. I'm getting training on it. I was supposed to get it today, but I had to cancel it so it'll be next week and I'm getting training on it.
Oh, that would be good information.
Yeah.
Sure.
OK, where are
we then?
Then it's the public quasi-popular.
Can we go to conditional use permits
Conditional use permits. I have no data on that instead. I was pushing that to a meeting where all of us If
we
do
push that back can we bring in
The design review process in conjunction because I don't think you can talk about CUP in a void without talking about DRPs.
Yeah, they kind of run hand-in-hand. Absolutely
and yeah, you know cuz some things are That might be director level at CUP level, but may rise to Planning Commission for a design review. Things like that? I don't know. I just think when you're talking CUP, you have to think about the design review side as well.
Yeah, I don' t disagree with that. It makes sense.
In terms of the definitions, do we have to go through that or is it just the fact that we've outlined where we might need a few more?
What I would recommend at this point is I've cited in my notes a number of areas that are missing definitions. Now, even my staff has experienced it where it would be helpful to have definitions and what I'll do is go back and have that conversation with staff and say this is your opportunity Remind me which ones you think because right now I have a list of 30 or 40 that are not Identified as definitions would it be helpful to have definitions in ten of these?
And then we bring out bring back some sort of redline version of that
your staff would be the ideal place
Yeah, I mean For sure Anything else Yeah, so I would say we're not going through definitions. That was just noting that the correlation between the two informational piece
Okay Is there anything else before we leave this subject
Did you open it to public comment? Can't hear
you
Sherry. Did you open it to public comment?
We did at the big I think we did at the beginning Is there public comment now? Not online Okay Now you need to come up identify yourself and preferably fill out a blue card so we have your name
There we go Thank you
2:26 – 2:3422 turns
My name is Jacob Acosta. Nice to meet you guys. I lived in Ohio for five years, and so I have some pretty interesting projects that I feel like will benefit the community and see how it goes from there. So this is my first time going to something like this. I've been to jury duty, so I kind of understand the concept of coming, saying your spot, and then having three minutes to say what you got to say.
So I'm gonna keep it short quick
Wait, are you handing something out? Okay. So you've got to have enough for everybody here and then I'm gonna have a couple at least for the dais in the back All right How many more do you have Wait, hold on. This is the Ojai Dam Project?
Yeah.
Okay so this is located outside of the city.
Oh yeah. That's what Brian and I were talking about earlier.
Okay. Wait this is a different... that right there is different from...this is not the same.
This says Ojai
Dam Project. What are these things here? Ojai Eco Living Village business plan. So here's I think this this information We'll just make copies of it and provide it as a public comment piece so you can keep going
Okay,
and then this is the last project Okay, so you have I'll just remind The chair you have three minutes to speak
We'll start that now.
Okay, great.
Okay Jacob.
So the eco-living project is for the homeless 85 units so if you cash flow and get them on their feet so they have something to do it's not going to be doing any foundation work It's gonna be pretty above the ground. So it's temp not temporary but it's on like a slab or not a slab but like foundation blocks And then the Mtelaha Dam project is for the... I was on a hike at the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy and they said that the Ojai Dam project was a big project for 2030. Whether we're gonna take this down, what are we going to do with the sediment? How are we gonna go about this project? And I'm proposing a dam that is actually beneficial for trout because they could live in that bowl so all you'd have to be doing is putting So I'm going to go ahead and get started.
Thank you very much. That's just an idea for visitors in creating more cash flow. And then the visitors map is just kind of something that you could have in order to have people see, I don't know if you've been to Solvang but they have a kiosk there and they have like a full map where you could do this place is cool to go hike. This place has this type of food. This does this type of drinks type map that you can have here to the public And then for your projects, I've had three answers.
Actually seven answers but like three good ones because they're pretty hard questions and so I could start there. So let's try here for the solar panels.
If you do that, you've got to do it for the entire audience.
So far, you're the only one. Just
making sure.
Can you speak to the mic a little better? I'm having trouble hearing
you. So for the electric, for the solar panels that's hard because it does reflect and it does cause magnetic fields so people get sensitive to like feeling that feeling the Wi-Fi stuff like that. So you could either do wind turbines where it's kind of like a spinning fan or you figure out some turbine if they want to produce more electricity for the grid The other one was the rooster's noise.
You could either do, if you get five complaints then it's off. If you don't have five complaints then you can pay this fee because this is a noise pollution type deal so you pay like 30 bucks to have like a rooster or two or whatever and so you cash flow that way and Ojai Animal service fee for exotic animals? It depends how exotic you go. I've seen iguanas, people like iguanas. I've seen monkeys, people like monkeys. I have seen regular animals so you have to either offer a service fee and see what happens there.
And then for the guest house in ADU, as soon as you start doing foundation work, then there's questions. And as soon as you start putting pipes in, there's questions. I think having a sink is pretty much as far as you can go sometimes. For commercial zoning, that is also pretty questionable. What commercial zoning is? Is the service going to be providing for Ojai or is it going to be providing for external sources? Are you trying to produce oil that's going somewhere else? Or are you trying to produce oil that's coming from here?
So kind of like figuring out zonings that way. And then also toxic products. Obviously, you don't want to produce air and hazardous stuff in the air so they have to consider that. And then for the meat there should always be kind of like a designated place for meat. Meat is really scarce because it spoils really fast and then people try to mix it in with other meats and make sausages and stuff like that. So if it's a designated place than that'd be good For the pistols and for firearms, that's also a questionable place. People like protection and people like to be secure but also having a spot where you could, people could place their firearms so they put in a code and it gets you into your storage unit, so you could cause this monthly service fee for that.
Because it's like a burden to have like a firearm if you're not really into that and your family was back in the day because most of that stuff is handed down after generation to generation. And then for the trash, you could either have bins separated plastic bins, bottles, metal aluminum bottles. Amazon cardboard boxes are like things that are scarce and they're commodities so you could use them for other products And then I have like probably seven more projects, but I haven't even started on them.
Thank you Jacob.
Thank you guys
OK? OK. We will close the public hearing. On item 2 and moving along to the scheduling on Item 3 and I do have a blue card here From Brian, who's been waiting so patiently.
2:34 – 2:4134 turns
So Brian Akins, I'm on the Historic Preservation Commission also. I've been on the museum board for 16 years like all things historic in Ojai and so a couple of things. I came to the meeting tonight to congratulate you. I was looking through and I looked at Future items. I looked at a Planning Commission tentative agenda and it says Dear to talk about the property at 242 East Ojai patio at the rear of the Ojai Mountain Farms, and I was going to after The I watched the HPC meeting your last HPC meeting and felt like there was a little bit of being muzzled on not being able to Talk about this item Then soon after that a meeting took place with the Planning Commission or with the HPC and we also personally felt a little muzzled in talking about The refrigerator the large refrigerator located on the back part of the property and It's interesting in looking at and so I was going to congratulate you on it, on having the opportunity to talk.
On the 21st when I came here and started talking to the chair she said well you're talking about it tomorrow and I said we are not talking about it tomorrow Can tell you if we were talking about it tomorrow. I'd have spent the last three hours at home with soothing our Jack Russell who's Upset right now because mommy went to Santa Maria to be with the kids today So, I look forward to Possibly having a discussion in the HPC in the future wherever it may be but it's not on the agenda for tomorrow
Are your meetings just once a month?
They are the second Thursday of the month
and it's too late to put it on the agenda I assume so
Okay, yeah now one thing one thing I want to point out So since our meeting I did go and get a copy of the zoning clearance for building permit. It's rather interesting document One thing I will point out too is if you look on
we're actually talking We're getting to way too much detail.
Okay this
project This is supposed to be light discussion on projects that are being
so yeah So anyway, I'm here to congratulate you and having the opportunity to talk about this Thank you very much Jacob who I met at three o'clock this afternoon kind of been giving them a sign that this isn't a normal Planning Commission meeting. Thank you Okay
Yes,
we have two items scheduled for the 21st. However looking this over and realizing that really this is the cart before the horse at this point. The first item that's being identified here will have to be moved and as we had it identified previously it's to a date and uncertain meaning that we're going to reschedule or re-notice for this body
That requires a motion.
No, OK, that's just this is a tentative schedule. It just provides an update of where we think some of these items are. Do you
know if it was the applicant who requested to pull it from HPC tomorrow night?
I don't
know.
Yeah,
it was reviewed by HPC December
11th. December 11 yes.
I don't
know. That is my understanding of what Moore intended. She planned to put it on the agenda the night after we met.
So I've got to go back and vet that because
I'm not
going to put it on for this body
review
until that's been
figured out. OK, correct.
And I'm also somewhat confusing that item with the the one or two North Signal Street, which is going to be coming before this body because it is coming before HPC tomorrow night. So that one for the 21st is is ready because we'll get comments from HPC tomorrow night. But in terms of the 242 East OI Avenue, I've got to have a conversation to make sure that is and truly ready to move forward meaning it's already been vetted through HPC.
So
thank you
Are there any other updates about that project? I can't disclose any sort of details. You'll see in the staff report Yeah, they'll be a lot a lot to discuss
Okay, so 102 North Signal. That's familiar? Yep.
We'll need
to make sure that... It sounds as though we'll have to make sure that we have a quorum with your sitting out. That sounds like we could tackle one of the items that we said we would set up I'm trying to fill in that open space.
For the February 4th? January 21. Yeah, I still think we have a meeting and here's the thing the things that were that we listed in the previous item are numerous so I will be asking for one or two of you to help with some
2:41 – 2:4427 turns
Signal Street does not sound like it's going to be very time-consuming. Am I missing something?
Yeah,
it's pretty straightforward but we've got to talk it through I think that depends
on what
you've got yeah You've got to talk it through and we'll see what happens tomorrow night And then there's a number of pending items and those items are either in review or
When this is complete.
Yeah, I just saw that DRP CUP 302 L Paseo Road restaurant outdoor dining
So some of those might move up
yeah even though it's complete we've still got to schedule it so
okay,
I Can't imagine that that one will be ready for the 21st. I haven't even seen it Complete from staff standpoint now I get to look at it
Okay
And then number of market are incomplete or pending Also just to be aware, I mean we are entering the first quarter of 2026. You will be having a joint meeting in the second quarter, potentially the first quarter of 2026 so just keep on the lookout for that. I have it at the bottom here is when we met last year you should expect about the same time. It'll be in June again.
That's the intent. Maybe before. Probably not before, yeah. So hopefully everybody's here for that because it'll be a good opportunity to kind of figure out the work plan.
Okay.
All
right.
Something about the first item. Yes, it's been bothering me that a Historic Preservation Commissioner is saying that that project did not go to the Historic Preservation Commission But I am looking at the minutes and it shows of the Historic Preservation Commission and it shows that 242 went to the commission on December 11th
That's what Sherry says
And that's what Sherry said. Maybe he left, but maybe he was talking specifically about the freezer as opposed to the outdoor dining component of it.
Okay, so
So I'm just clarifying that
That's a good point.
Okay, that's very possible Okay, cuz it did it did go to the Historic Preservation Commission on the 11th
Okay,
okay, so you'll decide whether it stays put or not right?
Yep,
okay Directors report
2:44 – 2:457 turns
Okay, so I Brought this up every time and I'm gonna bring it up again directors exemptions. Guess what? I just sent one out today So please review it.
I did
okay What I'm saying is I've sent it out please take a look at it and What I've noticed is that there's been this lax of the director's exemptions, and I want to make sure that you as a body still have a two-step process if you have concerns or questions in regards to it. So I think it's gotten lost in translation with the change in commissioners over the last couple of years. So just reminding you, check your emails. If you have questions, certainly bring those forward. If you have questions on bringing it forward to this body, certainly have that conversation with me offline.
January 22nd, so
you've already looked at the yes. It is January 22nd Yes
Okay, are there any Commission member reports? No. And our city council liaison is unable to be here tonight so we will go by that and that means we're ready for adjournment at 847. I close the meeting.
I was a little confused. So the Mountain Valley restaurant did go to HBC in December?