Planning Commission Regular Meeting

I'm calling the Planning Commission meeting to order We have That's 602 could we have a roll call, please?

I

Before we begin tonight, I would like to take a moment to welcome Bruce Hansen to our commission. This is his first meeting and we're very glad to have you aboard. Would you like to tell us just a brief bio?

Well, I'm a retired business professor so that's dangerous to open things up. But I taught at Pepperdine here locally at the Graziadio Business School and so that's been the latter part of my career. Moved in a number of places and recently retired here in 2019 And in Ojai, so I traveled into Ojai frequently before that. Even had my card to Cretana Library.

But before that, my first career was a neighborhood planner in St. Paul, Minnesota. Had a master's in planning and urban studies there and also studied at University of Aston in Birmingham, England And so that is in neighborhood and housing are the two areas. Housing was with Metropolitan Council, and Como Park District where I lived was my area. So it's nice to get back to that. I've been interested in a lot of those things wherever I have been but as a demographer for a long time in corporate life, in the middle.

I think otherwise my main interest right now has to do with sustainability. I'm inspired by the Chumash who lived here for 10,000 years and with 30,000 people stretched out and in harmony and abundance and they didn't overtax their resources so it's inspiring And so I think there's something to learn there, but otherwise very interested love living here and really want to figure out how to Help the Ojai be sustainable and live healthy and happy in the future

public comment that is about something that is not on our agenda tonight? But bring up a card if you've got one. No one here. How about online?

No.

Closing public hearing. At this point I am sad to tell our audience that we are going into closed session. I don't know how long that will take but we will be back here to proceed with the rest of the agenda as soon as we can, thank you. Anything else Lucas?

Also for the closed session, Commissioner Stewart you will need to recuse as you will be recusing from what I understand for the first item correct? Correct.

Yeah if he could state the recusal

in terms of what the reason is for the recusal

Yes, I am going to recuse myself from all matters related to OMF due to potential business relationship.

Financial interest? Yes. Okay, understood.

We're

going slowly so that Laura has a moment. Is Tony here? Is Tony here? Which one is

he?

Wait, we left. Front row. Thank you. We're waiting for one more person. Should be soon. Okay, our closed session has been concluded and we are moving on to disclosure of site visits.

Chair? Yeah

hold on chair.

I just wanted to report that we conveyed information related to potential anticipated litigation to the Commission no reportable action was taken.

Okay you need to go

And

this

yes, and yes Commissioner Stewart. This is where you

He has a personal financial interest So we are now on disclosure of sites and ex parte contacts Katrina

I went by the The backside of Ojai Mountain Farm, item one. No ex parte contacts. Okay. Jonathan?

No ex parte contacts. Yeah I walked back there as well.

Bruce?

I've walked back there to look around and see things from my own side.

Commissioner Hanson, is your microphone on? There you

go. Just make sure to hit that button there you go.

Okay the same here I have visited the site again and had no ex parte contacts so we are now opening the public hearing on item 1 Design review permit DRP 26-003 and conditional use permit CUP 26-003. Could the staff please give us your report?

Yes, thank you chair and commissioners. My name is Maura Macaluso I'm your principal planner The project located at 242 East Ojai Avenue is proposed modification of existing outdoor dining and you just Labeled the discretionary permits, which is a conditional use permit number twenty six zero zero three and design review permit number twenty six zero zero three and So the outdoor dining history within the Arcade Plaza includes the original approval for 242 East Ojai Avenue through a director back in 2007. This is one of seven approved outdoor dining permits.

The outdoor dining permits range from 250 square feet in size. That would be Sam's place to approximately a little over 1,200 square feet in size for magic hour the existing approval for 242 East Ojai was four 360 square feet and at the time there were six tables and twenty-four chairs approved For the outdoor dining The first approval for outdoor dining in the arcade plaza was for Rainbow Bridge back in 1997 and the most recent approval was for Bonnie Lou's in 2022 an outdoor dining approval requires an encroachment permit through the Public Works Department and And the Community Development Department has relatively recently shifted to a proactive code compliance system and where compliance review used to be through Public Works for the Arcade Plaza area, future compliance is going to be conducted through community development.

So if I could just jump in on this piece before we go, before we jump to the next slide. You see the context and the history dating back to 1997 that's really when the ordinance came online so this is really the first The Rainbow Bridge is really the first Outdoor dining permit that you that's out there even today. The standards still exist today and with that process there Was established the requirement for an encroachment permit that encroachment permit is required to be renewed every year out of the seven that we currently have within the Arcade Plaza, mind you there are other ones outside of the arcade plaza. So we're only focusing on the arcade plaza. There were seven none of them have an active encroachment permit so we're actually working through getting them into compliance by today's standards.

I just want to make you aware of that. Included with that is what was the previous business, Monte Grappa. Thank you. And still continuing is the Ojai Mountain Farm, but they are have already identified that they're willing to go through that encroachment permit process. But just know that they will have to be consistent with the rest of them which we're working on getting the rest of those up to speed with current standards. So and when I say we, I mean community development with co-compliance and then working with Public Works so.

The next slide is a location map. So here you see, pretty much in the middle of the arcade is 242 East Ojai Avenue. The restaurant fronts onto East Ojai Avenue. The zone designation is General Commercial, that's C1 and the general land use designation is Downtown Commercial. That would be DC. This the slide here is the it's a little bit hard to see but in your packet and also on the screen It's the existing outdoor dining conditional use permit and it's it's in red and Lucas is going to go through with the with the cursor to show you the outline of The originally approved in 07 approximately 360 square feet and what that comprised of As he goes along there with with the cursor if you can see that and I believe that in your packet it should be in red And so in the next slide, that line remains.

However you can see here that although the entire area is proposed to be, well let's say the entire outdoor patio areas is proposed to increase to 600 square feet but the dining area specifically is to remain at 360 square feet And that's indicated by the dark line that the director now is going to follow on the screen for you, and it's a dark line in your packets. So the 600 square feet includes the pedestrian path and the screened area where the freezer is.

The dining area specifically is approximately 360 square feet. Thank you. The restrooms would be in the upper left, or to the left. See there's an existing tree there? To the left. Yeah. So in the next slide, we have a proposed roof plan. So this is a proposed roof plan however all of the equipment is existing. The equipment is labeled as number one and so all those boxes are labeled number one. Number three is an existing parapet which is approximately 2 1⁄2 feet high And then number two is a proposed screen that it's proposed to visually camouflage the equipment, but also dampen the noise from the equipment. And the screen is approximately five feet high so it'll extend approximately 2 1⁄2 feet above that parapet.

The director and I visited the site a couple of times We went there before business hours and also during business hours with a sound or noise measuring device, which is right here. And the decibels measured during business hour or before business hours were approximately 58 dBs and during business hours in the middle of the day around noon were about 62 dBs.

And both of these measurements are below the maximum in the C1 zone which is 65. So during the day or you know in the middle of the day, obviously the noise were people walking and talking and There was actually a little bit of music playing on the subject site. Oh And there was construction nearby yeah hammering Well, then actually that hammering was happening in the morning hours when we measured it at 58 DB So the next slide, thank you. This is the proposed outdoor dining elevations. The top elevation there is the west elevation so that's facing east.

The second one is the east elevation so it's facing west and the third is the north elevation so facing south. All of these elevations include the existing freezer and screen And also the proposed two and a half foot high steel fence and Also an umbrella that stands approximately eleven and a half feet in height and It is a sixteen and a half Foot square umbrella.

It's made of forest green Sunbrella fabric and I The fabric, the fabric color and then the fabric itself meet the The arcade plaza design guidelines as Seth feels that the fence and the umbrella do as well As you can see through and it's an open area. However, you know somewhat private for the guests The fence if I didn't already mention it. It's a solid steel and it includes Planters You can see the screen here for the For the freezer and I think I'm going to describe that a little bit more on another slide.

So the next slide shows you their existing photos of the site, and they're from Looking West, Looking South and Looking East just like the plans, just like the elevations that you just saw. But this is what's actually existing today. In the looking east or actually in all of them, you can see the existing screen which is approximately six feet high and the freezer at approximately eight feet above that.

The next slide is another screen material. So the applicant is considering raising the height of the screen to eight feet because the Arcade Plaza design guidelines, what would conform to the guidelines would be a screen that is the height of the equipment that it's screening. The applicant is considering this Potentially this material which is an overlap Lap screen to replace the existing wood screen and it would be painted to match The existing color of the furniture out there in the existing screen It's a lightweight design and it would the existing posts would be used And this would this is proposed to not impact the existing oak tree any further than its potentially been impact So there are key conditions of approval in your resolution.

Well, let's start over you have a you have a draft resolution in your packet and the resolution includes conditions of approval And I called out just two conditions of approval here in this slide in these slides for you Because they're they kind of stand out one is that if there is discontinued use of a restaurant for a period of six months then the freezer shall be removed by the property owner of 242 East Ojai Avenue Then the other one is Required if there's required maintenance and repair of the freezer that the prop at the property owners expense expense and within 30 days of the diagnosis, the The freezer would be repaired if it needs to be replaced then it would need to be replaced within the building walls Within 30 days. And again all expenses Accrued by the property owner of 242 East Ojai Avenue And the reason I want to make it clear that it's the property owner of 242 is because The property owner ultimately has to sign off on the conditions of approval So and the next slide has to do with CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Every project is reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and for this project The director has identified three exemptions categorical exemptions They're in your packet.

They're in the staff report as well as the resolution and they include section 15 301 e 1 Which includes minor alterations of existing public and private facilities and that in this case would be the outdoor dining area section 15 303 e That's construction And location of small facilities or structures, and those would be the walk-in freezer the screen and bless you and the umbrella Section 15 311 which is construction and placement of minor structures accessory to existing And these are accessory to the existing restaurant facility, and that would be the walk-in freezer the screen and the umbrella This project is within the state designated historic downtown district The existing brick facade on the rear of 242 East Ojai is identified as a contributor to the state-designated Historic Downtown District.

The existing Edison panel, the utility panel and the walk-in freezer and the screen do visibly alter the view of the rear brick facade. However, they do not alter the materially physical characteristics of the resource as their temporary and they are reversible. They do not permanently modify the physical characteristics of the structure and therefore they're not considered significant.

The

last slide I just want to clarify a couple things First, I think I had mentioned something to the effect A couple months ago as it relates to CEQA. So Anytime that you're that staff is reviewing CEQAs it relates to a qualifying project we look first at the exemptions of the categorical exemptions and as to whether or not there are exemptions that fit the mold here. And looking at this project, I know that there have been comments received by the Historic Preservation Commission that identify that a full EIR is required but there's no material information that justifies the reference to an EIR.

Instead what you do typically if there is the possibility of moving into the box of CEQA or the California Environmental Quality Act, you look at the initial study checklist. And within the initial study checklist, you then evaluate the material pieces that would qualify as fitting into the realm of moving forward with some sort of what's referred to as a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration or full-blown EIR with overriding considerations. Instead of just running straight to an EIR, there are parameters and process for which you go through. In this case you run through the exemptions first and if there are no exemptions that apply then you immediately go into the initial study checklist. Here we have three exemptions that have been identified here that qualify for this project and then clarification as to How this relates to a state designated historic downtown district.

This is a state Designated historic downtown district. This is not a locally designated historic downtown district Two very, very important distinctions to be made here. Okay? The difference is the state designated historic downtown district really only falls into the CEQA category which is what we're looking at here versus a locally designated downtown historic district which would absolutely fit within our standards as it relates to Ojai Municipal Code. So I wanted to unpack that just a little bit more. You've only got four points here, but there's a little bit more that goes into it.

Thank you. So the last slide includes recommendations. So the commission is to consider the following. Receive the information and presentation provided by staff. We do have the applicant here as well. Open public hearing for public comment and input And consider approving the resolution and associated conditions of approval for the modifications of the outdoor dining area, and use of the walk-in freezer as an outdoor use located at 242 East Ojai Avenue.

And I am open to hearing any questions you may have of

staff. Am I remembering correctly? We've seen this twice before right?

This has been before the Planning Commission. I know that the previous time that you saw it, it was denied based on... Just answer the question which is yes. You can

say it twice. Yeah, so the first time it came before this body, it was then referred to the Historic Preservation Commission for comments and then it came back to this body for denial.

Okay. So the first time it came in, it had a certain design, the big umbrella. The second time we saw it, it had smaller umbrellas, little bit different design and then now it's going back to the big umbrella?

To the large

umbrella. Correct. It's a large umbrella. It is a different one but yes, it's a large umbrella.

Okay. Just wanted to clarify that.

I think I have a couple of other kind of similar questions. The last time we met, well let's get started with the questions I guess. Oh, I was wondering if we could clarify the distinction of the different spaces on the interior of the building?

So the conditional use permit is specifically for outdoor use and so is the design review permit.

I think that part of this question sort of relates to the interior of the building though, and so I'm not really sure how to Really unpack the question. I think at hand without understanding like how the interior space I mean there's a drawing but typically there might be you know Just like a note of what this room is You know storage this that or the other thing kitchen

Yeah, Vice Chair Chesley it might be good to ask the applicant that question just to kind of clarify how that's being used currently.

Okay happily Can you speak a little bit more to This idea of permanent and impermanent with relationship to the electrical equipment on the building

Well, the electrical equipment on the building is specifically for the freezer. So if the freezer is no longer Installed then there's no need for that electrical panel

Right, but the freezer is away from the building so obviously if it's moved that's not a big deal. It seemed like the concern, the historic preservation concern would be about the impacts of the physical application of the electrical panel to the building. So if that was removed, just was that reviewed in any way? It seems like that's more of a question. You can do anything and take it away but if when you take it away you've disturbed in some sort of way that seems inappropriate then I don't know. To understand what permanent or impermanent kind of means.

Yeah, so it's not permanent but it is attached to the building. So they didn't remove the brick in terms of putting the panel there and I should also like just to clarify that the panel serves both the freezer and The use itself, right? So the the existing with a pre previously existing Electrical was significantly under serving sure restaurant use Previous years. I think there's been some historical context identifying that at one point this was in fact a grocery store that then turned into a tea house that then turned into a full-blown restaurant and So over the years, it's evolved into what you see today.

But the electrical and all the either wet or dry utilities hadn't. So there was an opportunity for that to take place with this new restaurant that went in. And that then required and necessitated utilities that you see there.

Do we know where those were located before the new ones like wherever

the utilities and the electrical so the small the small box was Interior I've seen some old plans from the 90s Okay, and those plans show the the box on the inside of the building a very small box. Okay understood

So the electrical is injured And then, so HPC saw this just before us seeing

it this time, right? So there was a... I made the determination recognizing the process here giving the Historic Preservation Commission an opportunity to comment first. Not typical and not certainly within the process but recognizing the process that we had seen before just getting their comments first so that you could see them first and foremost.

And then this is the first time and so they saw the whole face of the project that we're seeing right now, correct This is the first time though. We're seeing anything about the roof equipment was that did they have any comments on that?

They well, this is the first time that you're seeing the roof equipment and The roof they did not see the roof equipment screening on On May 14th

Oh, they didn't see it on the preview. They

were they did not it wasn't it wasn't included in the in these Presentation on May 14th,

okay So that's a new information And just to clarify is that is that installed already? Is that similar to the refrigerator here or equipment separate

The equipment is all existing

exists.

This screening is not Existing its proposed

But the equipment was existing from this current renovation that went through.

I would like that question to go to the applicant when they- We'll have

the app, Applin can confirm it but that equipment is used for the walk in freezer. For the freezer? Correct. Got it

understood okay.

Okay, at this time before we open to the public I think we'd like to hear from the applicant.

Tony would you please state your name? Thank

you. Is there anything that you would like to add to the conversation that you have heard so far?

There's a couple of things that are inconsistent with my understanding.

We can't hear you, could you? Is

it on? All right. OK I'll do what I can. Is that better? Yeah thank you. The only thing that was materially not in line with my understanding the visible utilities on the roof are pre-existing from before me and the equipment for the walk in cooler are nowhere or not visible That's one kind of package. The second thing is that the electrical panel that when we took the restaurant over, it was woefully undersized and in fact there had been multiple electrical fires there and when we went to SCE to upgrade we had no we didn't ask for it. We got a permit from the city. We submit to the SCE, we don't like pick the size of the panel or how it's attached or anything I don't know how any of that happens But that was kind of outside of this our control and then the last guy just want to mention is there is some Misunderstanding in the community that we have like done some kind of end around or tried to sneak by people or anything like that We we applied for permit.

We got the permit I got a permit that said Restaurant and store renovation with outdoor freezer that was posted on our wall for a year while we did construction This is like the whole uproar about the freezer came after it was installed, after significant expense had gone into the space. Which I think you were alluding to which is why is it outside? Why isn't it inside? Which is what I assume you were talking about, Commissioner Chelsea or sorry, Chesley.

I was just also curious as to what the other, yeah, what the other spaces

are. Microphone please.

I was just curious about what the other spaces were. To some degree, it feels like there's a request here that what's happened which I understand how the process got us to this point but it was also something that was kind of necessary and I guess we have to make some sort of judgment on that or have some sort of understanding of that.

Sure, so just a little background. I know you talked about environmental sustainability here when you were doing your introduction and I think a lot of people in Ojai care about that. This project my family and I own a farm in Upper Ojai. All the produce everything that we grow there is what we sell in store. We create goods and food with that. That system, we're up on the mountain where we can't freeze things. So the only way to keep food fresh in this regard is to take it from the tree and either use it right away or freeze it. Our entire system, the whole concept of the restaurant, everything we're doing requires a large freezer. In fact I wanted a bigger one that was all we could get approved for.

We are working with it, but there is no opportunity for us to take that inside. Every inch of the interior is very busy with doing functions that we need in order for the business to exist and I would encourage any of you, I know some of you have done walk-bys outside if any of you want to see the inside you can see we've gone through great pains to use every inch of the space in the most effective and in my opinion beautiful way

Is there room at the farm for this refrigerator?

There's not. A

farm?

There is no power at the farm.

No

power? We are solar powered, we cannot put a freezer there. I see.

Any questions for the applicant? Okay thank you Tony. At this point, I will open the public hearing. We have one card from William Wyrick.

I feel really bad for the position that staff has put both the applicant and the Planning Commission and the public interest in this situation. Clearly, inappropriate piecemealing had allowed permitting to be done for something that should have been considered in a holistic fashion and was not. It's not the fault of the applicant, not the fault of the Planning Commission. The entire situation should have been considered holistically according to basic planning principles before any permits were issued for the effect of privatization of outdoor public space.

I think most people in this community viewed the Arcade Plaza as a public art project, frankly. As a public art common area. When we started to be using it for dining there was a lot of controversy about that and one way to think about that was and I know initially was to say well perhaps we should allow some leasing situation rather than providing a property right through a conditional use permit And if the situation that the liability of the city has put everybody into for this situation and if it's not reasonable or possible to look at some sort of, you know, maintaining the public interest in the integrity of what amounts to our outdoor public art project or a public art installation which is the Arcade Plaza. You know, perhaps at least a leasing situation that doesn't convey a permanent property right or some payments to the applicant for compensation.

But clearly when you're talking about a situation Where, you know, I had a problem with Sam's Place myself. You know, and I still do but at least I believe it's still a lease situation. I don't know if it's an actual CUP. But the idea of conveying property right for privatization of public space is disturbing to me as a precedent. The fact that staff allowed this thing to be piecemealed with permits issued in good faith, and the applicant acting in good faith for the installation of the cooler and all of that situation without it being holistically through going through the governance process, you know planning commission and everything and opportunity for appeal to council is really disturbing.

And I just think that we really ought to find a way to limit the precedent of establishing property right for privatization of public space. And I am not trying criticizing the applicant here, I'm criticizing the way this was handled that defeated what should have always have happened and that is a holistic consideration of the situation before any Kind of permits were issued that involved the effective privatization of public space. So anyway, that's my short comment I'm gonna go have dinner with my wife now

Thank You Bill We have one more card on this item from Larry Steingold

Good evening Okay,

we'll get there go ahead Larry

Larry Steingold I feel for the applicant he was given permits in good faith And now try everybody to me and it seems like everybody's trying to figure out how to thread a needle and straighten out this mess Because I've been most of the meetings and I don't remember the freezer ever coming up for directors exemption. Oh which means we should probably no longer provide directors' exemptions because it shouldn't happen now, in the future, what have you. But for me if you don't make the freezer part of the arcade – I mean we're already stuck because if I was him I'd be ripped okay? Because he's here on good faith.

And I agree with Bill regarding property rights, but requiring it to be bricked up so it looks like the arcade. Because if it isn't, the locals, the residents, the natives, the people in the arcade will remember a metal box being put there from now until whenever. And it was done under—whatever the reasons were, it was a mistake. And now we have to live with it because you gave him a permit and that's why. If he wants to unwind it, that's fine but if it hits his restaurant, we'll eat there for dinner and we'll see the freezer because it's there.

Unless somebody wants to pay out big bucks to move it and replace his business model or something, it becomes a real problem. So brick it up, make it look like the arcade. And eventually people will accept it as part of the arcade brick model just like every place else in New England and anywhere else where they make a McDonald's look like 1750. It's just part of the landscape and will disappear after awhile.

But to have a lawsuit, to get involved, to waste time here? The ship has sailed. It is just part of the deal.

Thank you, Larry. Renee Roth next.

Oh good evening. Rene Roth, I was a big fan of Osteria Montegrappa, OMG. That was a go-to place and it was a special place for us and I particularly liked that the oak tree was not behind a fence It wasn't enclosed behind a big walled in fence, which it is now. How can you put a big fence right close to an oak tree? I thought we had regulations about how you can't put big fences against an oak tree and I've already come to the I've already crossed that line with permit people. You're not supposed to have a big, huge fence surrounding an oak tree.

It's just not right. community setting that used to be there, that used to feel you were a part of. People didn't make a ruckus. There wasn't e-bikes. There wasn't a lot of noise. You felt like you were part of the community, part of the Arbolada—open tables, open fences. The eight-foot fence just does not feel like it should be there. That is a wall, stay out, stay away.

I also wonder about why did you have to get such a great big freezer? Freezers come in many different sizes and I'm sure you could get three freezers that would go inside instead of outside the building. So, you know, I think a rework needs to be done on this project And you've got to think inside what is inside the box, there's a lot of room in that restaurant. I don't know about the kitchen and all that stuff but I just don't, I wouldn't feel comfortable sitting right next to a great big, I heard the hum of that freezer when I walked back there it's pretty loud And if I were to eat back there, I'd say, I don't want to eat next to the freezer. Put me on the opposite side.

Also are they talking about putting tables in the little walkway and the pathway that goes to that community or that artistic community building in the back? Did I see that as part of the plan too? It just doesn't feel right. It feels like it's encroaching and making things bigger and less friendly, and less inviting to be a part of for the Ojai community, and I am opposed to it so I think that just needs to be said but I'm biased. I like the way it was before so please open up the tree open up the fencing and try to get rid of the freezers if you can. Thank you.

Thank you Renee is there anyone online no OK thank you and no one else in the audience right. OK in that case we will close the public hearing And bring it back to the commission for discussion. Oh, where to start? Anyone? Go ahead.

I always go first. I know.

You're brave, so.

Well, I also like William Wyrick and Larry Steingold and Renee Roth feel for the applicant I feel terrible because I also agree with what has been said. The oak tree shouldn't be behind the fence. And we used to enjoy the oak tree, you know eating under the oak tree and the open feeling without fences that was the whole point of the arcade design guidelines. That's the whole point! The whole point was let's create an area where it fronts onto a beautiful public open space It's not closed off.

There's examples in the Arcade Design Guidelines with open fencing, and so my comments are as follows. I feel like this recent application didn't really listen to any of our comments from either of the previous Planning Commission meetings The second time it came back, it was getting closer with the smaller umbrellas. More open feeling. It came back again with another huge umbrella. It's out of scale for the Arcade Plaza.

The Corten steel planters, I don't think that's consistent with the Arcade Design Guidelines. And I believe it creates a solid barrier around the patio that's not compatible with the intent of the Arcade Design Guidelines If you look at the arcade design guidelines, there are several pictures of outdoor dining. There's not barriers around them. It's open fencing or small planters in those photos. That's the idea. The feeling you want to get is open. It is an open feeling. It is not closed off this is our space here on public property. This is public property. It needs to be for the public, enjoyed by the public and I think that was the intent of the design guidelines.

I think the walk-in freezer and the fencing does not reflect the intent of the Arcade Design Guidelines. If you look in the Arcade Design Guidelines, there's a checklist. And the first three check items on this checklist says, Does the design reflect or complement the mission revival style? Well nope, this freezer does not. It doesn't and neither does the fence.

Is the building oriented to the plaza with elements such as entrances, the walls? So the idea for the Arcade Plaza was this is supposed to be the front of the building, not the back of the building. It used to be back in the day like an alley, alleyway. And the community decided that we don't want the alleyway. We have a public space here. Let's do something nice with it. Let's create design guidelines that show that we wanna have mission revival architecture. We wanna have the entrances facing public plazas. We don't want the alley effect.

It to look like that's where the trash bins go, where the walk-in freezers go. We want it to be a place where you have nice tables. I appreciate your outdoor dining. And I'm speaking through the chair. The outdoor dining is great. I loved sitting at Osteria Monte Grappa. It was our go-to place Back to my comments. I just don't think that this project orients to the plaza in a front doorway.

It's back of the building elements, which is completely opposite of what's desired there. I think the form, scale and proportion of that freezer, the fencing and the large umbrella again that came back is out of scale. It's out of scale with the adjacent building So aside from architectural design, scale, use and historic preservation. Aside of all that which I don't think this project fits, I'm not in favor of giving away public land for a walk-in freezer for a private entity with little to no public benefit And I am not supportive of this for those reasons.