Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Thank you.

consent calendar. Now we have minutes to approve.

I move that we approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 17th as submitted.

I second.

Roll call please, Sherry. Rye Schmidt? Yes. Stewart?

Yes

Hanson?

Yes

Murphy?

Yes OK, moving on. We have disclosure of site visits and ex parte contacts to disclose.

Bruce? Yes, I rode my bicycle around the perimeter of it and looked around to see what I could through. But it was very interesting. And that's primarily all I did with that. OK,

thank you. Nothing on my end, no.

OK.

Katrina. I will recuse myself from item number two because I live within 500 feet. OK,

thank you. I have been to the site. I have not had any recent ex parte contacts. So now we will move on to the public hearing items And that would be Design Review Permit, DRP 26-004. Which I will hand over now to the staff to discuss.

Thank you. Thank you Chair. Good evening commissioners and community members. My name is Lucas Seibert. I'm the Community Development Director for the City of Ojai. The item you have before you tonight is a modification to an existing design review permit and more importantly, I'm going to walk through the PowerPoint presentation. And I'm also going to ask for the designer, the architect for this project Jason Herbert to speak on this as well.

He'll give some more details to what's being proposed here in terms of the modifications. What I'm going to speak to tonight is kind of the history within the packet, there was a lot of information because there has been a lot of information that hasn't put together. This is probably just a snapshot of the information But it's the information that's pertinent to the proposal for tonight. And certainly helps to provide some context to where this project has gone and where it is at currently, in its current phase. And hopefully with this PowerPoint presentation and with Jason's help we'll get you up to speed and informed as well as with the community and obviously open up for public hearing and public comment.

So with that, the project itself is located at... Hold on. Ah, there we go. The project itself is located at 312 West Aliso Street. From a historical context standpoint, this project was approved as a 10-unit market rate development in 2007. Approved by City Council in 2007. Revisions to the project were approved in 2016. Those revisions were within the framework by which we're seeing phase two, which I'll go into later on or here in a moment, to the project. The project itself is consisting of four different phases. More importantly though before I go into the phases is the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement was approved by City Council in 2023, December of 2023 And that included this site as well as three others. The others include Mallory Way, which is just to the north of this.

It includes a project on East Ojai, 510 East Ojai, which also included affordable units. Mallory Way includes affordable units. And then there was a project that was approved on 304 South Montgomery. All of those included affordable units This site in particular was originally approved in 2007 with 10 units as a part of the settlement agreement and included two additional units which were deed restricted to be affordable. So, the site itself originally did not have approval for affordability but in 2023 as a part of the settlement agreement 2 additional units were included those units themselves are part of Phase one, which is just wrapping up right now. So going into the phasing plan itself for Cottages Among the Flowers, it consists of four phases, which is kind of unique and a little bit unusual.

The four phases themselves allow for the construction of the 12 units that we're talking about. The first phase includes four units. Those four units have just wrapped up and we're getting ready to start and work on phase two. Phase two includes three market rate units, those units that we're going to be talking about tonight. Phase three includes three additional market rate units, and then phase four includes two market rate units.

Important piece for phase two the reason why this is coming before this body tonight for consideration is when the When the surveyor and the contractor were we're staking out the site for the additions that are meant for The project itself. It was identified that one of the additions is actually going into the channel Obviously the addition can't go into the channel without us doing some fairly hefty environmental work to address that. So instead, the developer looked at that as an opportunity to pivot and downsize these three units.

That in itself, if you're looking at the phasing plan itself. Obviously I just talked about phase one which includes the two units that are closest to Aliso Street single story and then the two units. If I can use my cursor here just for a moment. There it is so if you follow the cursor. The 280 ADU units are above the five car garage that And those are a part of the settlement agreement now.

Phase two, which is the one that you're seeing front and center here? It's highlighted in yellow. Yellow dashed includes those three units. Those three units also include the piece that I just spoke about, which is if I can use my cursor here again there it is. This addition right here is what caused all the frustration and confusion. Because when you stake it out, it actually goes into the channel.

So that had everybody kind of taking a look at... And actually I went out to the site with the developer and really kind of addressed and took a look at it to understand what we were dealing with. At that point we started talking about alternatives. So the alternative you're seeing tonight is what ended up culminating from that. Now, before we go into it I want to give a little bit of background.

A lot of the material in here is kind of a refresher to this, but the history piece is one that's kind of interesting because if you look at the purpose of what Cottages is and what it culminated from, it was built as an affordable rental housing project. That was its original intention. It was purchased by John D. Burnham in 1929 designed by a local architect, Harold Burkett. The vision was a group of small Carmel-style cottages or bungalows. The result was nine cottage units and a garage that were completed in January of 1930 and named at that point the Cottages Among the Flowers. The intention?

To house teachers, artists and local families. Does that sound somewhat familiar to what we're doing today? The same issues existed a hundred years ago and they still continue to exist today so I just wanted to give some context of what we're looking at here even by today's standards Now the three units that we're looking at here, these are the physical photos of these three units. It's Unit 314B, Unit 312C and Unit 312B.

The units again are highlighted in this phasing plan, and more importantly you can see the area of work that's being focused on for this phase two. With that I'll have Jason go into some of the detail for each of these units.

Thanks Lucas and thanks commissioners. My name is Jason Herber, I'm the architect for this phase two of this project. Lucas would you mind going back to the site plan real quick? Sorry about that. I'll just give a quick overview. So one thing I do want to mention first and foremost is that we are proposing to reduce the size of these units but we're not changing the bedroom or bathroom counts of them so we're not changing the main amenities of these. We're just making them a little smaller So I'll just kind of give you a quick overview, starting with the north is to the right. So the east side, the one on the bottom is unit 312B.

Let me give Lucas a minute to catch back up to the slideshow. Thank you. Yes, next slide please. So this one is the one on the east side. It's Unit 312B. One thing to mention, this was what was previously approved and so if you skip over to the next slide, you'll see our proposed new footprint and then the red dashed line is the footprint of what was previously approved So this one we're reducing what was approved at 956 square feet down to 700.

Again, this is a two-bedroom one bath unit. I think one thing if you kind of toggle back to the previous slide, we kind of lost the dining area on the right and then we reduced the covered patio areas slightly from there. So then next few slides will be the exterior. And for all three of these projects, these are the previously approved exterior elevations and so the next one is our approved. Now it's kind of hard to go back and forth but We really did, in our redesign what we tried to do was really embrace more kind of what was there. We were really doing our best to keep the gables and the ridgelines and all of the chimneys and fireplaces are existing. We are proposing near the stone lower walls that were previously approved in the previous version as well.

So then

Yes, the information that Jason is referring to is on the dais for you to take a look at exactly. I also have extra copies in the front here if anybody's wanting an extra copy as well.

So most of the parking was, uh, the covered parking is, um, there are two parking buildings. One that's in phase one and a second park. Is that part of phase two at all? Or is it, is the parking, um... parking spaces

Good question Lucas. We may have to help me recall I know that our Summer units have new new parking spaces Yes,

that's true this the Summer units which are a part of phase four have Surface parking here. We're not actually looking at any changes to the parking layout All that part so the parking like for instance for phase one addresses So look at it from this standpoint the entire project as a whole covers parking for the entire project But the phasing is a part of what the construction piece is so when you're looking at phase one leading into phase two Phase two doesn't necessarily self park neither does phase three or face a phase four instead the entire project basically self parks in terms of the Parking spaces surface as well as cover.

Is that one? One parking place per unit

I think it's what I think it's a one-to-one ratio, but I also believe there was a variance that allowed for reduction in parking requirements.

I Could see outside, you know Parking spaces for most of them. I couldn't see one for four 314 B but everything's kind of torn up right now because of the The buildings are on our up

right. So you're saying a sign parking that's being identified at the moment, correct? Yeah I

was just kind of trying to

get an

idea of where they would park is there access on the other side To

yeah, actually there's three access points one is off of Aliso The second one is gonna be part of phase 3 which is off of oak And then you have kind of an emergency access piece that is also awfully so just to the west

Okay, that's just for emergency it's not for daily.

It's not really meant for daily use there's already gonna be a parking or I'm sorry access point that is a part of Though basically the channel that was modified to allow for four vehicles to go across

so Look somebody helpful but toggle back to the site plan that kind of shows what some of our oops Where the parking is proposed on the project The first slide

Was there any change to trees, canopy, plantings or anything otherwise like that that would be negatively impacted here?

Not for this phase. But since this was approved from what I understand there was a little bit more encroachment from the canopies of the trees that were there so the new reduced footprint kind of helps that a little bit more but we're not altering or proposing any removal or changes to landscape

And if somebody said this is just kind of cost cutting rather than, you know, authentically trying to make an adjustment here. How would you respond to that question?

I would refer to the first page of your agenda for tonight. It's really well written, I believe. So let me just read this because this is as well as a response as I could form. When staking the addition to the west it was identified that the portion of the expansion would be located within the existing storm drain channel located to the west. The developer contacted the community development staff related to this issue After a site visit was conducted with the community development staff confirming the issue, the developer expressed an interest in reducing the size of the impacted units as well as the other two residential units associated with the second phase of this project. The reason for this reduction is to reduce the footprint of each unit in an effort to minimize impacts to existing landscape and maintain the small cottage-style ambience of the project."

Anyway I think that's a good explanation for these changes

The one unit that was encroaching on the waterway had to be reduced. The other two did not, it was a decision by the developer to do that. Did he give a reason other than what you just read?

That's the reason that I have. It's to maintain the cottage character that kind of exists there in the current configuration

As these are market rate units, I would assume then that the price or rent will go down in proportion to the amount of decrease we've seen in size.

I'm not on the leasing side but I would make that assumption as well.

OK, thank you. Any other questions before we open the public hearing?

I think I just have one more. This adjustment we would make this evening does not allow for some sort of later building up or another further adjustment in any way to the footprint of this

building? Any adjustments, as you're seeing even for tonight in terms of the request, would have to come before this body. Yeah.

OK. Great. You didn't have to—I noticed they're raised right now that's probably for new foundations

Yes, that's

correct. You didn't have to move one of them for the drainage right?

Right we're trying to maintain their existing footprint as much as possible but they do need to be shored up with a new foundation.

Okay just trying to understand what I saw

Yeah, one of them in particular just it's probably something that you saw like for instance I think it's 312 or 314 B. That one is actually up on cribbing right now as an elevated piece to ensure that the units itself, I think Jason can speak to this and I think in talking with Jeff onsite and the contractor, it was necessary in preparation for what they were anticipating to do next which then realized they couldn't Not without significant.

Yeah, it's a lot of stonework to do

Thank You Jason, thank you very much Thanks, I will open the public hearing now So far we have one card and that would be from Anita Can't read the last name I should know it but I can't

okay its cram

Cram,

thank you. I write sloppy too sometimes.

Now it looks like cram now that you say it.

So okay so just one clarification phase two didn't just start it's been under construction for several several months Okay, so there are still some issues with the project. And the staff report for today with resolution and also they all mentioned CEQA mitigated negative declaration and the project conditions of approval and they need to follow that. So I just want to read something that's kind of an outstanding issue with the conditions of approval and this is JCR-1 historic resources If during the course of construction historical features are damaged or found to be deteriorated, they should be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and where possible materials replacement of missing materials shall be substantiated by documentary physical or pictorial evidence and accomplished in consultation with a qualified historic preservation professional.

And this is mitigation because these cottages should be city, state and national historic landmarks. And so this is supposed to be done due to loss of the historic resource of this and so far as we can tell this has not happened And even the two that have been done, they're painted green. So they should be white with green trim like and that is stated in the previous documents, the voluminous previous documents from previous years.

So it needs to be addressed historic resources. They've made corrections on a lot of things but that's a big one that has not. So I'd also like to mention that they've been opening the construction fence directly adjacent and this is for phase two. They've been working on it for a long time, didn't just start. They've been opening the construction fence adjacent to where I live and where someone else lives and just using that now as You know, part of their construction plan and it's really dangerous. You know people walk by there with dogs kids someone could run in there a dog could run in there.

The documents voluminous documents over the years also talk about sounds and vibrations and it is significantly more disturbing when they just open up. It's just a section of the fence and they just opened up and decide to use it so that's that's a big problem that I hope you know, can be looked at. And parking is lost in this. I just want to clarify that because 314B and 312B used to park where they now did the construction for 312 and 312A, and there's no longer space in what used to be a lot there. So parking is lost in this for two of the cottages.

And also, I think that again they should be white with green trim and that is part of the historic. And also you know, I'm just not convinced this director's exemption from June 19th 2025 that goes against the conditions of approval also. Thank you.

Thank You Anita Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak at this time? Sherry, is there anyone online?

No.

OK in that case we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Anybody want to start?

I guess the only general comment I would have is there's enough brought up in that, not having been engaged at the time many of this was decided. It would be good just to get up to speed on those comments and to listen and react to what's been stated in the meeting.

Yeah, so just from a historical standpoint the conditions I do believe say white with green trim. Jason, I'd ask you to respond to the color palette that you have in hand as to where that was drawn from. So I'll let Jason answer that one. In terms of the Phase 2 construction fencing, she's correct and he is correct. It has—the construction did start in preparation for Phase 2 and obviously as part of that you stake it out and that's where—and the cribbing and then the demolition had started so absolutely it had started months before that. But before any walls could be removed, that's when they noted that there was an issue with the addition that was being proposed for 314B. So that piece was in transition to Phase 1's completion.

As the phasing project moves forward, each phase needs to be complete before the next phase can start. The interesting thing about this project is because of the concerns that have been brought up regarding the number of conditions of approval. We actually hired a, basically a contract planner or co-compliance planner who has been monitoring not only this site but others as a conditions of approval compliance officer.

And to Anita's point, a number of those issues have been resolved because of the regular review and kind of educational piece that's been provided to the contractor on site The journal contractor on site. There are still others that remain, that need to be addressed and we continue to work with them to address those so it's a work in progress I would say to a certain degree as this project continues to move forward.

From your perspective there is a regular channel or at least some sort of process to manage that communication at this time?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean our co-compliance officer, Conditions of Approval Compliance Officer is out there on the regular. I wouldn't say out there daily but when he is in the office he's going in there and checking it for sure. That didn't exist when this project first started, though. So there's a number of issues that came up. I mean, I've met with Anita on a number of occasions to start working on addressing some of these but it was even beyond the time scope that I had so that's why we brought somebody on.

Yeah, I mean that would be my only comment if people can't weigh in they don't buy in. And we have to have a process there somehow you know that does keep a regular communication channel because I know just for the people who are new to this topic a little bit Given the traffic, the number of conditions on it and everything. Probably the best thing we can just do is just support people who are directly impacted. Nobody likes to get woken up at 7 a.m. with a rush of strangers through the

backyard.

Making sure there's a communication channel there so that people are aware.

And she didn't state this specifically but she is in the construction zone. I mean it is yeah, the construction is happening She's part of phase three so Or yeah phase three correct? Yeah,

so even more important Rather than tough luck you're in the constructions on even more important for us probably right? Yeah That's all

Is there a response with the color palette or how that works?

Couple things my understanding my involvement with this project started in around 22 or 23 I believe there are three previous approvals. Oh 7 16 and 19 So it's my understanding that 2019 is when this new color palette was approved this document. I didn't find it in the conditions so I did see the Off-white with light green trim as mentioned in there but like Lucas said maybe it requires a little bit further research to find out but that's my understanding and Then to in response to the construction that's happening The the channel that Lucas mentioned is a whole civil project in and of itself. That's happening And so that's why 314 B is had to be Lifted we had to remove the windows because you can't you can't lift it without, you know with all the glass intact.

So that's my Why there's some construction related to that unit? The other two have not been touched I

There will be car access to 314 B when you finish

That I'm not 100% sure it's the site plan shows parking throughout the site But I believe that interior area area close to those units is more of a pedestrian walkway. Okay, this is my understanding There's no there's no parking spots shown directly adjacent to those units

Jason, is the material used on the siding that's green, is that innately green or was it painted green?

It's painted.

It's painted? Yes. Okay thank you. Anything else?

You can I just to Jason's point the stuff from from 2019 we can certainly take a look at Because there are because of the history of this project all the way through I mean obviously would be working with the conditions of approval compliance officer to ensure that They're using the right color palette. I mean, we're giving you the color palette as best we know at this point but if there's a contradictory aspect to that obviously we've got to take a look at that and he is bringing up a good point so Yeah, we can take a look at that because the reality is if like for instance If the first two units that are closest to Aliso have been painted incorrectly. We're not signing off for final Sign-off on the project until that's corrected. So

okay. Thank you Okay, well You said that phase one was completed and does that mean it's ready to move in I

There are already people occupying, like for instance 312 West Aliso is occupied.

Good.

Which is the one that's closest to Aliso.

How about the ADUs above the garage?

So those require income qualifying units, or income qualifying individuals. The way in which this project is required to move forward is it's offered up to the tenants that are in cottages as well as Mallory Way for income qualifying. So if they're interested in doing that they can certainly submit the paperwork and go through the process. So we're actively working through that right now.

Thank you. I was glad to hear that the units that are being downsized are market rate units and not affordable units that are being downsized. I like the fact that the downsized units give a little more open space, landscape area to the units around them so that reduces the crowding feeling that could come from bigger units. They seem to me to be very efficient, compact but very efficient. So I like the design that I saw.

I like the color that I see on the unit. But if it's historically wrong, then I assume that will get corrected one way or another. So I am very impressed with what I saw. I saw the completed phase 1. units, although the ADUs were still under construction. But they seemed to me to be very well done. They're very attractive and I assume that this phase will have a similar good feeling about them.

That's really all I have to say about it. I have no problem with the downsizing as long as it's market rate and that gets reflected in the price that's charged for them, I think it's fine. So based on that, I would be at this point ready to accept a motion to approve.

Yeah, and before I make the motion. I guess just the only other comment is You know, we heard a little bit of like not listening behavior and then we also heard that you guys came to the city and said hey there's a problem here. And I just want to acknowledge that side of the equation as well that I appreciate the developers actually reaching out when other people might have made a different choice and just built it and worried about it later. I appreciate the developers reaching out as well and so that that's a positive piece that I want to call out.

With that I would I would make a motion to Approve the reduction in size as written Second the motion Sherry

roll call Hanson

yes,

Stuart.

Yes

Murphy. Yes

Okay I really appreciate the fact that this is all being done with private money. They are not relying on state grants or any other public funding and yet he has been, Mr. Becker has been willing to work cooperatively with the city and with the residents to produce a project that as I said I think is very Well done and nice looking so moving on Welcome back to the dive We are ready for Discussion items

Yes future agenda, tentative agenda items. So for the next agenda is July 15th there are three items identified on there two of them are appeals and one of them is what's being considered a pre-review So the pre-review is for 107 North Ventura Street. It's a zone change general plan amendment. I see it listed as just a zone change, but it's a Zone Change General Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit and DRP or Design Review Permit so it's a mouthful of information as a pre-review not as a concept review Okay, so basically this falls into that 20-day review period it's required when you're doing a modification to the zoning code. So because we're doing the modification of the zoning code as a zone change it has to go through a 20 day public hearing review before it comes before this body.

So the noticing puts it into the factor of you'll be seeing it officially on the 5th. You get a chance to kind of see the pre-review unfold on the 15th in terms of the two appeals. One is for 304 South Ventura Street, just to give the wiki leak on that. There was a protected valley oak that is proposed to be removed. It's identified as being healthy but proposed being removed. I identified a number of things they need to do per code And they are disagreeing with those things. So that's what we're going to see the appeal The appeal for the for the tree ordinance requires the Planning Commission to hear appeals So that's why this body is seeing it and not necessarily City Council or another body The same thing is true for 14 201 North Ventura Street, that doesn't sound right Sherry is that correct?

Is that the correct address for Katona?

It's

Avenue not Street. Okay, that's the difference okay so that one a tree was removed but it did not go through the full process so a number of What's the word I'm looking for? We issue citations and other things that they have to do as identified within the code, and they disagree with those things so they've appealed it. And that again comes before this body.

That is why you're going to be seeing both of these appeals and that is scheduled for the 15th. And then for August 5, there is the official review which will include an official public hearing for 107 North Ventura Street, the Zone Change General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and DRP. Oh my gosh three appeals Okay, so there's also another appeal for tenant protections for 1620 San Gabriel Street You'll hear more about that. But again, this is something that's that's somewhat outside of the zoning ordinance But it's identified as the hearing body for the appeal is the Planning Commission So that's why you will be hearing it Well, it's a little unusual but you know the Planning Commission has been charged with that review. So we'll unpack that as we as it comes forward so and then future agenda items these are all either pending or deemed to be incomplete at this point some of them I see one of them is in review at this point

What is the difference between being in review and incomplete?

It typically means that information has been submitted. So if it's in review, that means that we have new information that's been submitted. However with 710 Olive Street I'm not aware of any new information that's been submitted aside from what was submitted almost four months ago so That one is just pending at this point because there's no action that needs to be taken for that one And then the incomplete is we've submitted an incomplete letter that there are items that need to be provided before we can schedule it for hearing. And then pending means that information has been submitted and we're currently reviewing it and looking to schedule it.

Thank

you.

We have a director's report next?

I do have one thing to mention and I believe that I will turn my time over to Darren, our Senior Counsel, to speak to that.

Yes, so I want to say that this is my last planning commission. I have really appreciated and valued the opportunity and time I've had to work with this body and with staff. I will still be on the team but I'm relocating in my personal life moving to the Seattle area so I will not be able to attend the meetings anymore. But my replacement is here, John Cardenas if he wants to step up and introduce himself.

Thanks, Darren. And thank you for putting us on a good track and look forward to working with you all with the commission and supporting you as best I can. At the top, I just want to say happy birthday as well. Today is Darren's birthday and he chose to spend it with the Commission. My name is John Cardenas. I'm of counsel at Allish Hire Winder and really looking forward to moving into the assistant city attorney role. I am a resident of Dana Point, pretty far south Orange County so it's a bit of a haul coming up here but I really think this is the best part of the job driving into town made me realize that it took so long for my first visit to Ojai, such a beautiful town. So I'm really looking forward to supporting you and working to make the best land use decisions possible to keep the city's priorities front and center.

I have a bit of an unusual background. I have 23 years as a federal government lawyer in the Foreign Service, so you might not—it's not an easy connection to the land use law that we do here and the 23 years that I spent overseas in the Foreign Service but actually a lot of my work in the Foreign Service was focused around infrastructure development at a subnational level.

Of those 23 years, I spent 15 in the Middle East. So range of different issues—Libya, Yemen, Iraq. Coming back to Southern California where I was born and raised looking forward to Reconnecting with the communities here and really Helping us move forward all the important decisions that come before the Commission So let me leave it there And I'll be joining you all at the next meeting in two weeks. Thank you so much

Thank you, John. Welcome aboard. Hope we get to hear some of your really good stories.