Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Item 4: Hotel El Roblar Health Spa Project

• Staff presented a finalized Historic Resources Report indicating the building is eligible for historic listing.
• The commission debated whether to seek Historic Preservation Commission input before forwarding the project to City Council.
• A motion passed to send the project and report to the Historic Preservation Commission for review on August 13.
• The item will return to the Planning Commission on August 19 to incorporate comments before final recommendation.

Item 2: Conditions of Approval for Planning Commission Resolution

• The commission reviewed conditions for an appeal heard on July 15, originally requiring Coast Live Oaks.
• Public comment included a request to substitute sycamores for better drought tolerance and establishment success.
• A motion passed to approve the resolution with a revision replacing the Coast Live Oak requirement with two sycamores.

Item 3: Request for Modifications to Existing Minor Conditional Use Permit (Ojai Roots)

• The applicant requested modifications to occupancy limits, hours of operation, alcohol license types, and event restrictions.
• Staff recommended maintaining most existing conditions due to three verified violations regarding parking and seating.
• Public comment was extensive, with supporters citing community hub needs and opponents raising noise and traffic concerns.
• A motion passed to continue the application for 90 days to allow the applicant and neighbors to resolve outstanding issues.

Meeting Summary: Planning Commission – August 5, 2026

Call to Order and Roll Call

• The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A roll call confirmed the presence of Chair Murphy, Vice-Chair Chesley, Commissioner Stewart, and Commissioner Rice-Schmidt. Commissioner Hanson was absent. The meeting proceeded with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda Approval and Item 4 (Historic Resources Report)

• A motion was made to postpone the public hearing on Item 4 to the August 19 meeting and to direct staff to present the project and historic resources report to the Historic Preservation Commission on August 13 for review. The motion was seconded. Discussion focused on the 50-year guideline for historic eligibility and procedural options, including whether to hear public comment immediately or postpone the entire hearing. Staff explained that the commission could proceed with the hearing and subsequently continue the item to incorporate Historic Preservation Commission input. The motion to postpone Item 4 was voted on and failed. The commission decided to proceed with the public hearing on Item 4 that evening, with the understanding that the item could be continued to a later date to incorporate comments from the Historic Preservation Commission.

Public Communications

• The public communications period was opened for matters not on the agenda. No members of the public requested to speak, and the period was closed.

Consent Calendar

• The consent calendar included the minutes from the July 15, 2026, meeting and a resolution regarding conditions of approval (Item 2). A motion was made to remove Item 2 from the consent calendar to allow for full discussion. The motion was seconded and passed. Subsequently, a motion was made to accept the minutes from the July 15, 2026, meeting. The motion was seconded and passed.

Item 2: Conditions of Approval for Planning Commission Resolution

• The commission discussed a resolution regarding conditions of approval for an appeal heard on July 15. Original conditions required the planting of two 24-inch box Coast Live Oaks, payment of a $225 tree fee, and supervision by a licensed arborist. Public comment was received, including a request from the applicant to substitute two sycamores for the Coast Live Oaks due to drought tolerance and establishment success. A motion was made to pass the resolution with a revision replacing the Coast Live Oak requirement with two sycamores. The motion was seconded and passed.

Disclosure of Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts

• Commissioners disclosed site visits and contacts related to the evening's agenda items. Several commissioners reported visiting the site for Item 3 (Ojai Roots) and meeting with the applicant. One commissioner reported a conversation with the applicant regarding Item 4.

Item 3: Request for Modifications to Existing Minor Conditional Use Permit (Ojai Roots)

• Staff presented a report regarding a request by Ojai Roots to modify conditions of approval for a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) at 315 North Montgomery Street. The applicant requested modifications to: remove the fixed occupancy limit of 35 patrons and numerical limits on umbrellas/furniture; change the alcohol license reference from Type 42 (no minors) to Type 41 (minors permitted) and clarify language regarding future Type 47 licenses; remove the monthly limitation on hosted events; expand hours of operation to seven days a week, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; remove the condition requiring the removal of an existing trailer; allow limited amplified entertainment/background music; and delete the condition requiring Planning Commission review after three verified violations.
• Staff recommended maintaining most existing conditions, including the 35-patron limit, monthly event limit, current hours of operation, and the prohibition on amplified entertainment (with an exception for background music subject to noise standards). Staff noted three verified violations currently exist regarding parking and seating placement.
• Public comment was extensive. Supporters highlighted the business's role as a community hub and the need for family-friendly spaces, arguing current restrictions were designed for a previous "wine bar" operation. Opponents expressed concerns regarding noise, traffic, expansion of hours into a residential zone, removal of occupancy limits, and potential increased alcohol consumption. Some noted a history of conflicts with neighbors and code violations.
• Commissioners discussed zoning distinctions between the C-1 commercial zone and adjacent VMU residential zones, the distinction between Type 41 and Type 42 alcohol licenses, and the definition of "events" versus standard operations. Discussion also covered the removal of fixed occupancy limits versus fire code standards, parking requirements for outdoor dining, and the distinction between background music and live amplified music.
• A motion was made to continue the application to a date certain within 90 days to allow time for the applicant and neighbors to discuss and resolve issues regarding hours of operation and other conditions. The motion also included an update to Condition 2 to remove the specific reference to an ABC license type, thereby allowing the applicant to apply for either a Type 41 or Type 47 license. The motion was seconded and amended to specify the 90-day return timeline. The motion passed.

Item 4: Hotel El Roblar Health Spa Project (Continued Item)

• The commission reviewed the Hotel El Roblar health spa project, involving a conditional use permit, design review, zone change, and general plan amendment. Staff presented a finalized Historic Resources Report (HRR), noting the building is eligible for historic listing but proposed exterior changes would not impact character-defining features. The applicant presented modifications regarding lot merger, courtyard fencing (replacing a solid fence with a low planter and gate), operations (staffing and community access), and zoning changes from Public Library (PL) to Village Mixed Use (VMU).
• Discussion focused on whether to forward the project to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for comments before the Planning Commission makes its final recommendation to City Council. Arguments were presented for HPC review to ensure statutory rights regarding character-defining features were met, versus arguments against delay, noting HPC comments are advisory and the final decision rests with City Council.
• Two competing motions were made: 1. Approve staff recommendations with an exception mandating HPC review and delivery of a report directly to City Council, bypassing a return to the Planning Commission. 2. Approve the resolution to move forward to City Council, with the exception of sending the project and HRR to the HPC on August 13, and returning to the Planning Commission on August 19 to review HPC comments and incorporate them prior to sending the package to City Council.
• The commission voted on the second motion. The motion to send the project to the Historic Preservation Commission for review on August 13 and return to the Planning Commission on August 19 to consider those comments passed.

Director's Report and Commission Member Reports

• The Director's Report segment was called with no items reported. During Commission Member Reports, one member indicated an intention to visit Mac in the near future. An attempt to solicit a report from Mr. Whitman was unsuccessful due to technical difficulties regarding audio status and participant role; he subsequently disconnected.

Adjournment

• With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:16 p.m.