Planning Commission Regular Meeting

It's 6 o'clock and we're going to open the meeting of the Ojai Planning Commission. We will start with roll call. Sherry, would you please call the roll?

No changes.

Okay, then we will move on to public communications This is the time that is set aside for the public To address the Planning Commission an item on city business and items other than our scheduled agenda items Matters raised at this time may be briefly discussed by the commission and will generally be referred to staff and or placed on a subsequent agenda. Under state law, other than for emergency items no action can be taken at this meeting.

Are there any people in the audience who care to address the Commission at this time? Seeing none, Sherry is there anyone online? No. Okay moving on to the consent items we have the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of February 18th 2026 is there any discussion then the chair would entertain a motion at this time

I make a motion to pass the minutes from February 18

Second roll call,

please. Sherry Steward I Reshmit Murphy here Chesley

Okay, we are moving now to

staff report, I just want to give some clarification and some information on that before I have Patrick come up and kind of walk through the revisions that were made as he did with the Historic Preservation Commission last year. So the freezer that you're seeing there at the site currently was reviewed and approved through a ministerial process referred to as a zone clearance. That zone clearance, this body had identified and really kind of to a certain degree We had legal take a look at that and then identify that actual process that we went through was not an appropriate land use process. Really the DE or conditional use permit, or even something reviewed by this body is the appropriate land use process.

Historically, if you look at zone clearances, the zone clearance itself was adopted during really kind of in 2004 with a fairly significant code update that took place during that time. And during that time it progressed into three different ways in which to review items from a land use standpoint. At least that's the way in which it's been kind of identified to me historically here.

The first is the zone clearance, which is kind of a check in one sense to the land use piece that has already taken place or for those ministerial items that the staff can then review and then move forward with that are non-controversial. The second way in which to review items is through a director's exemption. A director's exemption or even a minor conditional use permit, those are all land-use related pieces that rise to the level of the director or staff reviewing, authorizing that review and that review then being sent out to this body as well as city council for their review, courtesy review as well.

The third way in which to do and process applications from a land use standpoint is to simply send it to this body or to the Historic Reservation Commission, or even directly to City Council depending on the merits and the project itself. So those are the three avenues that I thought and was understood that we had in terms of moving forward. The first one that I just mentioned which is the zone clearance is off the table. We have been doing that on others previously and that has basically stopped. After getting legal advice on our process and procedures, we have pivoted away from that.

Being that as it's been said the freezer itself is being identified as non-conforming meaning that zone clearance was authorized and signed off by myself in my department in June of last year And not only that, but there was a tree permit that was signed off by myself in May of last year as well. Both of those pieces—now the tree permit actually follows the guidelines for the tree ordinance. The zone clearance was really the inappropriate and inexcusable process by which we went through. So I wanted to clear the air on that. I know we can have a conversation on it, but in terms of this body making recommendations or identifying a path forward for the freezer, actions cannot be taken simply because it is a non-conforming use by the way in which the land use exists today.

Did you say can be taken?

Cannot. Cannot Because it is considered to be non-conforming And I'll leave it at that for right now. What I would like to do is to move on to, and we can certainly have that Q&A piece but I'd like to have Patrick come up and speak to the items that have been revised as a part of the outdoor dining permit piece.

Okay.

I've got a PowerPoint here I'll pull up. Give me a second.

So. Thank you very much for your comments at the last hearing. We took this to heart, made changes to all the plans per your comments. One of them was you wanted to have a larger view of the entire area where we're going to do the work. So we created this site plan showing the existing adjacent outdoor dining spaces plus our proposed area. And we also added the areas of the various outdoor dining spaces so you can have a comparison versus what we're proposing and what's existing there.

Really no changes to this plan. It's really when we get into the elevations, the details that you'll see most of the items addressed. You asked for a plan that was much clearer on the existing area that was from the previously approved CUP. The existing patio plan with the kind of temporary barriers that are defining it, which also define other outdoor dining areas in the plaza. And then our proposed plan with an overlay of those two previous uses and areas and borders.

We revised the plan so now our elevations are metal, or the railings are metal to match the adjacent outdoor dining area rather than the larger canopy umbrella that was to cover the entire patio. Now we just have standard market umbrellas which are in compliance with the guidelines. We're also, you know, colors that are more compatible with other umbrellas that are in the plaza.

And so that was really our big change and then we also changed our outdoor furniture as well. So previously we had some colorful tables and chairs and now we're going with much more typical seating and tables. You can see in the rendering, we also showed the revisions. So you can see that the railings look quite nice. There was a concern about them being permanent. We actually designed them so they could be removed in the event that there might be an occasion in the arcade that would need it.

And these are just the details showing how We would not be affecting the existing brick pavers, so those would remain. You can see that the level of detail we've already put into the railing design and just matching the existing. And those are revisions that we made. Do

you have questions for him?

Yes. So the detail just shows bolts going into the ground for the...

Yeah, underneath the existing brick pavers there's actually a concrete slab so the pavers where they would go in would be pulled up, they'd be salvaged So at any time they'd go back in and then the we would just attach them to the existing concrete slab so they could be just a bolted and Then we have a design actually for where we'd have veneer brick veneers that would go over that area because I noticed some of the other Outdoor dining areas where the railings are you can see the concrete below? And we didn't want that. We wanted to look like it really did belong there

nice

What's um What's the in the rendering? It's really hard to tell. I mean, it's hard to see it until you get to the renderings, but on a guess it's page. Yeah, that one is the portion of the top left rendering this kind of this like portion of area that's like just just surrounding the tree and going back to the building, but there's no seating in it to the right hand side there Correct. Yeah, what's so what's the use of that

area? Potentially future seating but that would have to come back here to get approval for that

Okay And then is it just in there and you guys have some seating outside of the fence Is that just

that was in the rendering but it's been removed. It will not be part of

this. Yeah, it's not in the plan Okay And I also, it's a little, you know one thing I didn't notice. I think the scale of your, the original one is actually

different. I noticed that earlier today.

Okay. I mean I think, oh but I see it's overlaid here so that's fine. I guess some questions I have, although I don't know if there's so much directly for you. But maybe just to try to discuss them is that area that we're talking about on the side there as well as this kind of different question but up for discussion about the freezer. So this patio is getting larger, but a big portion of that is not currently planned to be used for seating.

Yeah I think the concept from the owners that's an area where kids can play while their parents are dining. It's really kind of, yeah it's really for the kids.

I see okay that's the use of it. But then also the freezer is also taking away obviously some square footage where seating possibly could be.

The freezer is in an area that has always been fenced in, so it's never been seating.

It looks like it kind of overlaps in your overlay but it's maybe not so much space. So it's really only a minimal amount of additional seating and it's mostly this back area I guess just the question is if we're you know Not to be like against making the patio larger, but if we're making the patio larger just to make sure there's like a reason you know for that enlargement To encapsulate I guess this tree And grow in that way so I Think those are my only questions about About that I don't think I have any other questions about the umbrellas or the materiality or the railing. It seems more in keeping, so that seems good.

I think it's just to make sure that we feel satisfied that like the enlargement of the patio works with the area back there.

Are you going with tables for two or tables for four?

There'll be a combination of two tops and four tops. So yeah, tables for two, tables for... The tables for two could be pushed together to create a four top.

How many total seats do you anticipate?

Twenty-eight.

OK, in the staff report it's indicating 38. And I couldn't figure out how you were going to arrive at that. So you're saying 28?

I'll say 28 to 32 depending on how they put tables together.

Put two tables of two together are you going to get four seats?

You're going to get four seats, but there's also the communal table in the middle.

Yes

So potentially people could sit on the ends they could bring some more seats over to that

Okay,

you know how tight they want to be with their but my assumption is 28

Okay that table in the center is for six presumably

correct?

Okay

How do you guys feel about this extra kind of area that doesn't have seating in it right now I

Okay, do you have any more questions for I don't have your name. I'm sorry Oh

Patrick

Patrick

Can you show that it's off of the kind of closest rock bench its four feet Do you have any idea how far it is off of that kind of like? Gateway structure I don't think it's dimensioned anywhere, but I

just. We put a dimension on because that was the one that had the greatest concern is that when commissioners mentioned bringing their child through that area and just wanted to make sure it was wide enough.

It's probably about eight feet or something like that. And the dash line, I mean the dash line is just sort of showing the general area. But the actual area of use is the double, the light double line? Yes, correct.

Okay we've kind of turned this around. Thank you Patrick for your introduction. Now we'll open it up to the public communications.

Yes, open it up for public comment.

Okay do we have anybody who would like to make a comment at this time? Sherry presumably still should

have a card

Well I have a card that says OMF patio and no name on it okay

Thank you very much good evening there are so many issues with this project give

us your name please

pardon me

Could you give us your name,

please? My name is Craig Walker and I'm a resident of Miramonte.

Thank you.

There are so many issues with this project it's hard to know where to begin. The alterations to the plaza behind 242 East Ojai Avenue which include a walk-in freezer large electrical panel fence and expanded outdoor seating area should be reviewed as one project CEQA doesn't allow piecemeal, segmented reviews. CEQA is designed to bring clarity to the discussion and this process has confused everyone.

The bottom line however is that neither project has had a proper CEQA review which is required by law and I want to remind you that a historic resource in CEQAs includes not only the building itself but its immediate vicinity or the surroundings And this project is definitely right in the immediate vicinity of an historic district, historic buildings, historic properties.

There's also more than just historical impacts that should be studied. If you've gone down there and heard the noise from the freezer, 58 decibels continuously. I don't see any mention of that in the administrative report. The outdoor seating proposal under discussion tonight will add significantly to the overall encroachment of Ojai Mountain Farm onto the plaza. When you add it all up, it's a cumulative impact of 900 square feet.

Two and a half times the size of the original CUP. The total square footage of the CUP should remain where it was originally at 360 square feet. If they want an outdoor walk-in freezer and storage area, it should come out of their CUP and not deed them additional space to take up on the plaza. The plaza is maintained by the Plaza Maintenance District, consisting of all the businesses in the surrounding area.

When you give away an area of the plaza to one business or allow them to create permanent exclusive structures on the plaza, you are requiring businesses as far away as Hip Vegan to maintain a privately used area that doesn't benefit them. In fact, there was no meeting with these businesses to discuss this project before it started its journey here. Considering the previous seeding of additional plaza space and the significant impacts to the historic character I suggest you deny the new CUP but allow them to use the current one making sure that the CUP should keep the same boundaries as the original There should be no blocking of pedestrian flow or sight lines towards the west end of the plaza. No seven-foot fence should block views of the historic brick building.

There should be no encroachment onto the plaza behind adjacent properties. Require only individual movable tables and chairs. Use the existing metal barriers, they reflect the proper style and are moveable. And just make sure that all the historic guidelines in the plaza maintenance guidelines are followed in terms of how there's a look. We're supposed to be a Spanish village theme and would appreciate it if you would make sure it stayed that way. So and I think finally, I just consider it a real tragedy that they weren't able to find a way to preserve that mural which is something that people have enjoyed as children all the way from 1945 when it was painted. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would care to make a comment at this time? Sherry still no one online

Yes, I went ahead and allowed him Larry. OK,

Larry,

how are you? Hope everyone's well tonight if Mr Walker is correct regarding sequel. Then that should be taken into account if he is incorrect then obviously you can ignore that but regarding historic maintenance in Spanish Village that should be taken into account. But more importantly the freezer. The freezers there, it was given. It was provided. It was signed off.

That's what that's on. However, there is no reason why it shouldn't be made to look like the rest of the plaza red brick mortar mix would whatever make it so that blends in To the facility, the property it's next to. The wall make it look like it's part of the facility that it's always been there not that it's a metal box surrounded by a wood stockade fence or however nice it is. It doesn't matter if it's surrounded. It should look exactly like the building. That way, when people look at it, it looks like it's part of the—I call it the arcade. The plaza. Whatever you want to call it. It should not look like it doesn't belong because that's part of the historical—that's part of the ambience. It's part of the Spanish architecture. It is part of the reason why people come to Ojai, the Spanish revival, whatever.

It shouldn't look like the back of a strip shopping center with a metal box, with a metal vent coming out of the roof. That can be taken care of. It can all be taken care of by architects, by inventive scenario creators, scenery creators. We have enough scenery people here from L.A., they can make it look like it's part of the facility. It's not that difficult. The rest of the fencing and all that Um, he wants to expand his business. You get an extra chairs if that works fine that I'm not more concerned about. I'm more concerned about the metal box looking like it doesn't belong there because now the next person who wants a freezer or a shed? It doesn't have to look like it belongs either.

Everything should look like it's part of the scenario, if that's the visual that we're trying to create. All right? We want people to come and look at the arcade like it's all one parcel, one piece. And thank you very much and have a nice evening.

Thank you, Larry. OK, we will close the public comments at this time and turn it wait. Bill

Miley just raising his hand.

Oh you have another one?

There we go,

OK.

Hello can you hear me

yes.

I just heard Craig Walker talk about the sound level coming from the freezer, 58 decibels. The ambient sound level in that area, I'm sure is less than that. And it's occasional people talking, people laughing. If you have a piece of machinery that is constantly producing a level of sound beyond what is normal for that area, it can be very annoying and disturbing And that issue in Ojai should be of real concern to the commission.

We are basically a quiet community, we try to be quiet and this level I would suggest would automatically mean it should not exist. Thank you.

Thank You Bill is there anyone else? Sherry

no

okay thank you Then at this time, we will close the public hearing and turn it over to the commission for discussion.

Can I just respond to the CEQA piece?

Yes, we would like to bring that up first.

Thank you. So California Environmental Quality Law has two paths. The first path is when staff looks at a project, we look at whether or not it fits into the category of it being exempt meaning it doesn't fit into the CEQUA box It doesn't get evaluated from CEQA. Instead, you look at it from the standpoint of what exemptions exist or categorical exemptions exist within the body of law of CEQAs that you can apply? Here we've identified three, three categorical exemptions that apply to this as it exists with the expansion, as a pre-existing use.

Going into the box of it being either a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration or even a full-blown EIR with overriding considerations. If it fits here, it never makes it over to this area if that makes sense. All right? So in terms of it being a part of CEQA, it's not. We've identified it as being exempt from CEQA. Not that it needs to go through the full blown EIR or MND Not true in this case.

Could you tell us why it was considered exempt?

Yes, so if you look at the staff report and more specifically even the resolution It identifies it as a minor alteration to an existing public or private facility Clearly fits within that categorical exemption. That's the first one if it fits into that one then these other ones are just in addition to Let me give you an example where there could be an argument for us going through it and it fitting into the sequel box If you're modifying the facade of a historic building Absolutely, it fits into that. We're looking at that from it fitting into that box and we start asking questions that are beyond the scope of what staff can respond to so we start looking at experts. We start reaching out to historic architectural historians that put together historic resources report that then drill down how we evaluate it moving forward.

Does it still fit into this ECWA exemption box? Maybe not. Maybe there's something that needs to be reviewed and clarified and mitigated, to a certain degree. But to assume that the item itself is an EIR is incorrect. The way in which we evaluate this is you first look at it from the standpoint of it being exempt. outside of the box of CEQA, still identified as a CEQA classification or discussion but outside the realm of it going into a negative declaration or mitigated declaration—negative declaration or even an EIR with overriding considerations. So I just wanted to—I keep hearing that it's an EIR. We immediately go into EIR.

Not true you you instead look at it from the standpoint of it either fits into a CEQA exempt box or It fits into the other three categories. I just identified

Do you have questions about that Jonathan

So if there is something about the project that it's normally exempt but because it's a historic structure and And this is an area right outside the historic structure. It could, you could take it out of the exempt status because of the very nature of it being historic and if there's considerations at hand, you can bump it out of that status because it's historic.

There would

have to be something

that identifies it as being significant

Right, that's what I'm saying. Any kind of significance. So it is possible to say this is a significant impact to this historic structure. One could argue that.

If we're talking about the freezer, that's potential. However, the freezer is not a part of this application that we're taking forward. Is it an informational piece that's been identified within the staff report? Is it identified as being a non-conforming use? Yes. Is is something that this body can consider tonight? No.

I have so many, I feel sorry for the applicant actually because I think there were so many things that went wrong with this project. One being and I've said this over and over but I think that we have an ordinance and it's not CEQA related but it is related to piecemealing And it is section 10-2, 1802. You can look it up and what it is an ordinance that says if you have multiple permit applications the applications have to go so if you have a tree permit, a CEP, something that might be a director's exemption whatever a combination of permits One might be able to go to the director, but if there's multiple permits all those things have to go to the Planning Commission. They have to go the highest permitting authority. If it's a tentative map in there it goes to City Council, but all these things should've been brought together as one to the Planning Commission.

The tree permit I know you did a zoning clearance, That would be a CUP, and it would have gone with this amendment to the CUP. So I'm seeing it as this is a CUP and it's outdoor dining. It's a new business coming in. We're going to look at the tree permit. We're going to look at the freezer. We are going to look at the outdoor dining expansion. That's how I see it. That's how it's been done in the past here, so this is really frustrating and one—and the other thing is where are public works in all of this?

The encroachment. Did the applicant know that they have to do an encroachment permit, a dining permit I mentioned that at the last meeting and I'm just floored that this isn't happening. So, I feel bad for the applicant and as far as this outdoor dining, I think the umbrellas are fine. They're great. You listened to us and I appreciate that. I think the chairs are fine, no problem with that.

I think the fencing is actually fine. I prefer the movable panels in this area because one you're asking to encroach into the neighboring space, it's public plaza but it's right in front of the neighboring building and what if they want to come in and do an outdoor dining permit? I think it's fine to let these guys go in. They're the first in, they want to have outdoor dining. I think that's excellent. We all love sitting outside under the oaks so I'm okay with that but the panel allows for we could condition it if the other tenant wanted to or building owner whoever business wanted to come in, we could say, OK, Mountain Farm you have to move over now. Ojai Olive Oil wants to use their outdoor dining. You can do that with movable panels.

So that's not a deal ender for me, the fencing drilled into the plaza. I walked around behind you, Mayberger. You can see where the fences were moved and the bolts are still there so that's annoying to me. It's like that should have been replaced. When those bolts are cut, we need to replace the paver. We want our plaza pristine. We put a lot of money into it I I just think that that's an issue and when you have an encroachment permit That can be a condition. It can be a condition of the CUP too, but this is something that the encroachment permit Requires an annual review If they're expanding sorry buddy, you got to you know, bring it back to what was approved So this is a key element of outdoor dining. That's just comment. I do agree that I don't understand why Mountain Farm wants to expand eastward when they have this whole area showing blank.

They can just move their tables there and not move into the Ojai Olive Oil Area, especially if they're bolting the fence into the plaza If you're going to bolt it, bolt it in front of your own business. I really don't want to approve the expansion and one of the reasons is we have a non-conforming structure use of this freezer And we're not allowed to expand non-conformities. In fact, our ordinance, our encroachment ordinance or Non-Conforming Use Ordinance says you can't approve something, expand the non-conformity.

Well I see this as an expansion of a non-conformity because I'm looking at it holistically. We allowed something shouldn't have been there Maybe the business shouldn't have gone into that space if they couldn't accommodate their use there inside the building. All these things, I just think we need to look at it holistically. Our ordinance says we should do that. CEQA says we should do that. So I'm not comfortable with this expansion.

I'm not. They have an existing CUP, or yes for outdoor dining they have the panels they can sit outside. I would approve the umbrellas. I think they look fine. The tables and chairs look fine. The fencing even is fine but I just don't like the fact that they're bolting it into the ground on you know not within their realm

yeah

so

did say that they would have Pavers available if they had to move it but to your point, it's like Yeah, there are automatic. They're immediately taking over an Alignment that's not really aligned with their with their building

right? But they can return it to its original

Okay. Yeah conditioned I mean it hasn't been done in the past in the plaza and I don't know who's minding store Right. Um,

yeah, that's the problem.

Yeah

down the road

The other thing is I would approve this expansion with the fencing and everything on a condition that they remove the freezer.

That may be something that we need to bring Patrick up to address, but let's see what else we have to say first.

Well, I was just wondering...I understand that we can't...just in thinking of everything that was just said I mean, so what is the process to address the freezer? We can't address it tonight obviously. But in discussion, what is that process or is there a process for that?

So as a nonconformity, it could be a co-compliance situation where we look to address. But the nonconformity from an expansion standpoint, I'm not sure that I'm there with you. But I understand the spirit of what you're talking about. The freezer itself had already been, and the piecemeal piece, I also see where you're going with that as well. And you make a valid point there, too. So from a non-conformity standpoint it exists as it remains right now.

So anything beyond that conditioning it I would recommend against doing that in terms of conditioning the removal of the freezer upon the approval of the expansion. I would recommend against that simply because it is a non conforming use.

Well, that's what I mean our ordinance states in the non-conforming use Ordinance it's it's the city's goal to remove Non-conformities. That's a goal. That's a stated goal of the ordinance It's right in there So when you're doing a discretionary permit, that's the perfect time to address the non conformity

Understood. I'm aware of that one. Yes, I think that where it's tricky is like when you do the math and It's just hard to address these things individually. So if it wasn't addressed in the way that Commissioner Rice-Schmidt is outlining, but maybe it is our sort of job to try to still do our best to consider it in that way because it's pretty hard when you do the math of let's say the CUP from 07-05. You have 360 square feet.

I mean, that plan actually shows 24 seats. You know this new plans 28 seats maybe more depending on but like it's a lot more square footage for like a couple more seats and so the question is why is that? Well we know the freezer plays in I mean I think the plan pretty clearly shows that the freezer takes an entire four seats away, so that's an issue. And I guess there is this question about the back area where it doesn't really inspire us to approve something that goes over even though it's not technically a property line but goes over the kind of line of the buildings. We could imagine the whole maybe back of the arcade area having nice little patios and stuff. Sure, that could be a possibility. So why would we give this extra space as is kind of being questioned?

So I think those kind of three things just make it hard to talk about this at all without talking—or without dealing with the freezer first, then. Then the answer is like, well, we can't approve anything until we find a way to have a different discussion about the freezer. I mean, I think a negotiation's an interesting idea. I thought the Historic Commission was also maybe concerned with the electrical panel that was put on the back of the building.

Maybe they're okay with that now? I'm not too sure.

I'm sure

not.

And the tree, and the tree itself—we put a fence around the tree instead of the tree being on the plaza where you have outdoor dining under an oak tree. Let's put a fence around the tree.

You don't quite understand that whole portion of it, why we need...

I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me so I don't know. I think if we can look at it and look at the arcade design guidelines in the intent there, look at our non-conforming ordinance and try to remove any non-conformities and allow the applicant to have what he's requesting which is expanded outdoor dining I think that if we condition it to remove the fence around the oak tree and remove the freezer and allow him to put it inside or create space inside his building, Or some other place.

I don't know where that would be, but... I would be willing to approve it. But as it is right now, I'm not willing to approve the expansion.

Could you, Lucas, expand upon the code compliance? Was that in relationship to the sound level or was it something else?

No, it's in

relationship... Code compliance deal with... Code

compliance is a relationship to non-conformity.

Non-relationship

to the noise.

Okay, so the code compliance could address the freezer situation.

Yes.

With a complaint?

Well not necessarily. We are moving into a proactive approach. So before it would have been reactive where we wait

on