Planning Commission Regular Meeting

It's six o'clock and I'm calling the Planning Commission meeting of August 5th, 2026 to order. Could we please have

staff report it does identify that it's eligible for local and state but not national given the age. So, that's just like a very surface discussion. It was certainly more information provided in the staff report. This body has the opportunity to either push this item to Historic Preservation Commission providing that opportunity for comment. There is other alternatives but that is the motion that's on the table at the moment.

Could you give us the alternatives?

Yeah, so the alternative is to still hold the item and take public comment as this is item number four tonight. The very last item for tonight. By doing that you're allowing the public to provide comment and then the commission to weigh that option and then still kick it back to the Historic Preservation Commission for comment. This body acts as a recommendation body for this item going forward to City Council So, there are a couple different ways in which this could be handled. If this body is looking to review those comments from the Historic Preservation Commission then this would be the appropriate measure.

The other appropriate measure would be to hear the item, make a recommendation within those recommendations include that the item go before the Historic Preservation Commission before going to City Council.

So we wouldn't have the opportunity to see it again if we listened to it, recommended it goes to

historic. That would be another option where you could hear the item and still ask and leave the public comment period open to allow the opportunity for the public to continue to respond once those comments come in.

And is it realistic that it can be on the next? Meeting for the historic preservation. Do we have

yes because we were made aware of this early on Yes, we believe that we can make the 13th and we believe we can make the 19th as well Okay What I would caution this Commission staying away from is pulling item and not allowing for it to be continued date certain by doing that We'd have to re-notice Because this is a change to the code There's new provisions as of January 1st of this year that basically have a 20 day Rollout versus a 10 day notification period which is It adds more time and effort to what we're doing.

So do I understand that we could Keep the item on the agenda tonight. We do have, I assume people from the hotel here to make a presentation and people from the public who have opinions that they would like to express. So if we do that then we can just continue the item to enable the comments from HPC to come in after the 13th And then finalize the item on the 19th here back at the Planning Commission. Is that correct?

That is an option.

Do we have other comments or questions?

My only comment would be that in my belief we should take the opportunity to have people comment while they are here today. And I do like the logic of bumping it down the line a little bit, but we should gather information while people are here and we can learn something.

But our decision doesn't have to be made until the 19th, correct? So that we can take tonight's information as well as the information from the HPC on the 13th.

Yes if this body decides

that. OK. If we have no other questions or comments OK. I would like a shortened

review

of what that motion was?

The motion was to postpone the public hearing for item number four to August 19th, and directing staff to take it to Historic Preservation Commission on August 13th.

Thank you.

Could we have a roll call please, Sherry? Rye Schmidt? Yes. Stewart? No. Chesley?

No.

Murphy? No.

Okay, we have public communications.

Hold on.

Yeah, we need to footnote that. So the item will be heard as number four and there are no changes aside from the one that was just brought up to the agenda tonight.

Thank you.

So we're not having it go to the Historic Preservation Commission?

No, we're going to listen to it. We're going to listen

to who is here tonight to present and we're going to listen to the public comments and we can then ask for the HPC to

** We're still getting

to the committee. We're taking a longer road while we have people here who can give us feedback. ** Okay, we have public communications time. This is the time set aside

for the Planning Commission

Here are the members of the public for business that is other than those items on the agenda tonight. I don't have any cards for that. Is there anyone here tonight who needs to speak to the Planning Commission on topics not on the agenda? Sherry, is there anyone online? No. Thank you. Then we will close public communications. The consent calendar is next. We have the minutes for the regular meeting of July 15th. Could I have a motion to accept them?

I would like to take item number two off the consent because it wasn't any unanimous vote, so I don't want approve the resolution by consent, because it's not unanimous.

Right now we're talking about the minutes of the July meeting?

Well, we're talking about the consent calendar, right? Well, the first part is the minutes. All right, well I want to take the second one off

the consent. OK, can we just get the minutes approved first?

So the way in which this works is once the consent calendar has been identified there is two items on the agenda. Commissioner Reichman has identified one of the items that she'd like to pull off the agenda and you can still continue to talk about the minutes themselves but the item number 2

has to come first now

while we pulled off and then there be

well if if if it's approved

So, it would require those to, I believe it would be a majority in order for that to come off the agenda. Correct? Or am I wrong on that? Yes, it would be a majority. Okay.

And what would that

mean

exactly?

So you'd be able to discuss the item beyond just simply having reviewed it before. So remember that that is a resolution that came before this body on the 15th. We carefully crafted those those terms Before this body and you voted on it, it wasn't a majority so

It wasn't a majority and it's not clear to me if we're adopting it as an approved Resolution based on last discussion or for approving it as to form so for approving it as to form only That's different because even though I voted no as to form, I would vote yes on this vote. But if it's regarding the actual decision that was made, I want to vote no because that was my vote.

Yeah, so it would be as to form and that's really the point with this is we've taken those carefully crafted words put those on within the resolution itself. Typically those don't actually come before the spot because of the sensitivity of that particular item we thought it was necessary to bring it back.

Okay, so I still want to take it off as to form because it doesn't have the record of the vote. I Think that probably has to be a motion Okay, I make a motion to take item and number two off the consent calendar Is there a second?

But

Can I ask a question? So then how would we proceed with item number two?

We would discuss it in more detail. Today? Yes, right now.

Just to check our understanding where effectively because I think you're right procedurally we have to pull it out of there but it doesn't necessarily preclude us from having all of the public input we want. We're just not considering the specific pieces.

You're considering it at the very moment It's just that as consent, they're meant to be non-controversial. So you're just looking at little typos here. Instead we'll be having a full on discussion about it. I'll give you a very brief presentation and then we can go from there.

OK. I didn't yet. Yeah.

You seconded?

I didn't. Didn't.

This is going to be a long night.

There's no harm in taking it off consent.

But we can still, we still go ahead and discuss it? Yes.

I mean, I'll second. I'm open to listening so but I think you said we all have to agree anyways. Okay.

Yep okay. So let's take the that item has been taken off the agenda so let's first address the consent. So minutes. The minutes.

Are there is there a motion to accept the minutes.

I'll make a motion to accept the minutes from the July 15 2026 meeting.

All second.

Roll call please. Rashmit. Yes. Stewart. Yes Chesley yes Murphy.

Yes OK moving on to disclosure

No, hold on. Now we're moving on to the item that was pulled from the agenda so now we must discuss that item before we can go onto disclosure of sites. So the item before you for discussion tonight now is the conditions of approval for Planning Commission resolution that was heard before and voted by this body July 15th. At that meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal and considered testimony from both the applicant and city staff, revised the penalties required by the director, and required the following. And it was threefold. One is that the applicant shall plant two new 14-inch box coast live oaks And two, the applicant shall pay an additional fee or tree fee of $225.00 and then three, the planting of the replacement Coast Live Oaks shall be under the supervision of a licensed arborist.

I believe that was a 24-inch.

Yeah, that's what I have here. Number one, the applicant shall plant two new 24-inch boxes. Yes. Thank you. They went back and forth between the 15 gallon versus the 24? Yes.

OK.

Discussion or questions?

OK so I guess it's just a technical thing but if we are approving this as to form I was hoping to see the vote in there, that there was four commissioners that voted yes and one that voted no. And then because it has today's date on it. So if it has today's date, then it's the vote today that we're talking about in the resolution. Right? Because the resolution is dated with today's date.

True. It is for today's date, correct?

So it really is the vote today to approve the resolution, correct?

Yes.

That's correct.

I agree with that.

OK.

Is there any further discussion of this resolution? Mr. Miley, you had I sent a card in for item two.

This is item two.

OK, I was taking that for this as item two. OK, come forward.

Hello, thank you. At the last meeting when this was an issue on the agenda, I spoke strongly in favor of the appellant based on their willingness initially and ongoing to follow the rules. The communication failure which kind of caused the problem unintentionally. The value and completeness Krotona arborist report and the willingness of the Krotona to do the right thing. So I certainly support this resolution as it is, and to indicate that Krotona is, I'm just an observer, is really thankful for this. Thank you.

Thank you Bill. The next speaker is Bill Mellott.

Thank you. I believe the applicant sent a letter to the city requesting a change of the two oak trees, that they substitute two sycamores in their place. And I don't know if that's a problem for the city and the reasoning behind that is that they've had problems in the past with planting small oaks and getting them to be able to reach maturity and the sycamores Are more drought tolerant in the sense they have a more robust root system and are.

More easily established so they're requesting that we change those two oaks to sycamores.

Thank you. We did ask for the advice of an arborist on the selection of where the plants would or the trees would go. Yes and I think it makes sense that we would also take your advice regarding the type of tree.

I think it's an appropriate

tree. Do we need to have a motion in order to?

For the revision yes

OK, thank you. Yes. OK. Do we have anything else Bill? No. OK I have one other card here that says two but it didn't there's no name on it.

Sorry, Elena DeVos Santos. I just wanted to take the chance to say thank you to Chair Judy and the commissioners and Director Seibert, the staff, Maura, our city attorney for your kind consideration of our appeal. And so far what seems to be a favorable resolution to our problem. Thank you very much.

Thank you Elena. Is there anyone else in the audience who needs to speak on this item? Yes, I see a hand wave. Nothing okay is there anyone online? No thank you OK, it's back to the Planning Commission. We will close the public hearing and do we have any questions or comments?

I'm okay with the sycamores as a recommendation if that's being proposed by the arborist. And you said the location is also being

chosen?

Chosen

by the arborists for the trees best survival is what I remember us discussing. Correct,

number three says the planting of the replacement it does say Coast Life Oaks if we do end up going with the sycamores it'll be the sycamores Under the supervision of a licensed arborist so that arborist will determine the appropriate location

Okay, all right then I think we are ready for a motion

I'll make a motion to change To pass the resolution with the revision of replacing the requirement for the planting of coastal live oaks with two sycamores and

Is there a second?

I'll second

that. Any further discussion? OK, could we have a roll call please? Roy

Schmidt? Yes. Stewart? Yes. Chesley? Yes Murphy? Yes

OK, moving on to the disclosure of site visits And ex parte contacts. Are these for all the items now, tonight?

Correct. Thank you. For the next two items, yes.

Katrina? Are there any site visits or ex parte?

I went out to both sites and I met with the applicant for item number three, Ojai Roots. Brad?

No recent contact. Bruce and I did do a site visit a few weeks ago to Ojai Roots, but nothing since that last meeting.

Jonathan?

Yeah, I went to the Ojai Roots site and met with the owner, applicant.

OK. I also met with the owner of Roots. I also had a conversation with the applicant on item four As I had requested a tour and time got away from us, so instead we had a conversation. Public hearings.

Yes, thank you. My name is Maura Macaluso. I'm the principal planner here at the City of Ojai. Thank you chair and commissioners This is a request for modifications to an existing conditional minor conditional use permit the Exists sorry it's modification to the conditions of approval for an existing minor CUP And the original CUP was approved by the Planning Commission in 2021 for an outdoor dining facility that included a type 42 alcoholic beverage license and their property is located at 315 North Montgomery Street.

The current tenant received director approval of the transfer from those 2021 conditions of approval Your staff report includes the current conditions of approval that are being requested to be modified, the requested modifications and then staff's discussion. And at the end, there's a little discussion from staff or by staff that is also going to identify two added conditions that are being recommended that the commission adopt that are shared for other outdoor venues like this one.

So right now what I'm going to do is go through those conditions of approval, just the ones that are being requested for modification. So original condition or current condition number one states that the approval allows for the configuration and number of patrons and that number is 35. The applicant's request is the request is for removal of the fixed occupancy limit or base occupancy on maximum established by life safety requirements. The request also includes a request to remove the numerical limits on umbrellas and furniture configuration.

So staff recommends that the Planning Commission maintain the existing condition of approval Regarding the number of seats in the outdoor dining facility as well as the basic configuration not like exact while the project Site is in the VMU zone. That's village mixed used mixed use it's bordered to the northwest and west by residential uses and In a mixed use zone and although the site adjacent to the south is in the C1 zone, it's also developed with a single family residence.

Occupancy limits and other approval conditions ensure that the outdoor dining facility remains compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Regarding the configuration of seating, staff believes that the intent was really more for the number and general layout and not like to the T of the furniture. Current condition of approval number two states that the approval allows the outdoor dining facility with the exception of minors for an alcohol beverage license 42, for the consumption of beer and wine for 35 patrons. The applicant is requesting to remove the reference to minors and replace with their own specific language.

So staff's discussion includes that the applicant has requested to the ABC for a type 41 license. The applicants also discussed the possibility of a type 47 license in the future. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission revise the existing condition of approval to include reference to the currently requested 41 and include The ABC language describing the license as part of the approval. That sounds confusing.

What staff is recommending is that the applicant, that the Planning Commission recommend that they go from a 41, that we allow the 42 which will allow minors. Right now they have a 41 which does not. Is it the other way around? Okay, sorry. Staff recommends that you approve a 41 which will allow minors. Currently they have a 42 which does not. But I want to go further to say that the director will not consider 47, which is for distilled spirits in the future. That's not currently on the table but it's something that has been discussed by the applicant and that we're not in favor of and that's due to the potential impacts on the surrounding sensitive uses.

So as far as the language in the conditions of approval, the specific ABC license language is critical for the commission's consideration because it specifies how the outdoor dining space will function. The details of the different types of licenses are included in your staff report for information while considering which one to approve. And the conditions of approval so therefore like the difference between a 41 and 42 is whether minors are allowed and So having that information in the condition in the conditions of approval staff feels this is appropriate Current condition number three states that the approval allows the applicant to include a host a hosted event a maximum of once a month within the current permitted Conditions including seating capacity hours of operation and noise restrictions Types of events include community meetings pop-up shops with local makers trivia night and a guest chef or winemaker education class the applicant is requesting that the monthly limitation be removed and to allow normal restaurant and community events consistent with the approved hours occupancy and noise standards Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider maintaining the monthly limitation on outdoor events due to the surrounding uses and in this case, as you know they're residential which are considered sensitive uses.

Staff also recommends adding language indicating that a hosted event is one where the venue is closed to the public and also including weddings or other events as determined by the director, to be appropriate in the types of events that are permitted which are listed in the staff report. The next condition of approval that's being requested for modification is number four and that is the hours of operation approved by this minor conditional use permit and director's exemption shall be as follows. It's Wednesday through Friday from 4 p.m.. To 9 p.M.. Saturday from 12 p. M to 9 p m and Sunday from 12 p m to 9 P.M.

The applicant is requesting to expand the approved hours to allow Seven days a week from 7 a.m.. To 10 p.m The applicant has indicated that they may not be open all of those hours But would like to be flexible and to operate within that range Staff is recommending that the Commission consider maintaining the existing conditions of approval related to the hours of operation for this facility The limitation on hours is an attempt at an effective measure to ensure compatibility with the surrounding sensitive uses.

The next condition of approval, current condition that they're requesting to modify is Condition Number 5 and that is as a condition of receiving and maintaining the Director's Exemption in Minor Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall remove the existing trailer And the trailer has been removed. It belonged to the previous occupant, and so staff is recommending that that condition of approval be removed, and that's also what the applicant is requesting.

The next condition of approval is current number seven, and the condition is that amplified entertainment is not permitted as part of the existing permits. And the applicant would like this to be open for discussion. They're requesting flexibility and also clarification regarding limited amplified uses if appropriate. Staff's discussion here is that staff recommends the Planning Commission maintain the existing condition of approval not to allow amplified entertainment.

Staff also recommends adding the word live music as not permitted and recommend, or I'm sorry, and also that background speaker music be permitted subject to the noise standards of the municipal code. The next condition of approval that they're looking to modify is condition number 14, and that is the director—that director verified violations to conditions of approval shall require Planning Commission resolution 2303 that was the original one to be rescheduled Before the Planning Commission for reviewing consideration of the violations within 60 days from the third verified violation The director shall provide written information as to this specific violation and if available the approximate time and date of the violations to the conditions of approval And also note that sound monitoring be taken at the northern property line directly across the driveway from the rear outdoor seating.

The matter shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission with notification to include property owners within 300 feet. So the applicant is requesting that this condition be deleted in its entirety, and staff's discussion includes that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission maintain this condition of approval. That the item be returned to the Planning Commission if there are three verified violations and outdoor dining facilities are conditionally permitted.

And this particular site is located adjacent to sensitive uses and also has history of violations. And if there are multiple violations, three It's prudent for staff and the Planning Commission to evaluate the use and its appropriateness for the conditionally approved location. So while we're talking about this condition, staff currently has three verified violations It just so happens that we have them right now and it's within 60 days. And we're here tonight. We had already planned on being here tonight with the request for modification.

It looks like you had a question. So conditions of approval are being discussed tonight and Violations I mean the conditions of approval can be discussed this evening. That's what we're that's what we're here to do if the commission wished to Revoke first for instance them on the the CUP that would have to be at a separate hearing That's noticed specifically for that So the three current violations that have been verified are parking on the required ADA parking spaces with a coffee serving vehicle during an event and also two times having outdoor seating outside of the approved area of seating, which also happens to be within the public right-of-way.

So, and then going on. As established outdoor dining facilities on private property may be allowed subject to a minor conditional use permit in 2021 it was discovered due to complaints that a bar had been open there or wine bars since 2013 ultimately the director chose to forward that Director approval to the Planning Commission Due to its sensitivity and their being complaints and in 2022 the The Planning Commission approved the permits for the facility and created the existing conditions of approval because the site is surrounded by sensitive uses. So that's why the conditions of approval are what they are.

The property itself is located in a C1 zone. Oh, I'll hear about this later, the fact that we didn't open this up. I have a picture for you here. I don't want to hear about this later. So here you have a slide that shows you the location of Ojai routes at 315 North Montgomery and the uses to the north, west and south all being residential. The uses that are residential however to the north and west are in the VMU zone and to the south is an existing single family residence.

That's just what I was going to describe and so there that is There's a history of code compliance concerns related to the outdoor facility previously and Currently and staff recommends the Planning Commission maintain the majority of conditions as they're written currently with the exception of the ones that I've stated and that are in your staff report and resolution, I Also want to note that in the current Resolution for this evening that's attachment a page two of four the first whereas There is a correction there I Third line, it says here that for the minor conditional use permit for dining facilities. It says with no minors it should be with minors permitted and then type 41 would be correct but it's with minors not without minors.

So with that, I know there are people here to speak tonight. And I'm also here to answer any questions the applicant is here and will want to speak and she has her own presentation that she brought in this evening.

Thank you Rihanna. The audience will remain quiet or leave. Thank you. Go ahead Brianna.

I'll just keep it here and the presentation thank you all so much for being here. My name is Rihanna and I'd like to take the opportunity to provide context about the history and origins of Ojai Roots. I started this business with a friend many years ago in the backyard of a family spot in Ojai. It's funny as I reflect back because I never really set out to build a business.

We had a love for gardening, nature and community that was fostered by our experience of growing up in Ojai and attending schools like Topatopa, Miramani, Matalaha, Nordoff and Ojai Valley School. This love for nature started a mission of planting the first seeds in an abandoned patch of dirt. As I reflect here tonight, I realize that in many ways those first seeds are what brings us here almost a decade later.

The original garden provided our family and neighbors with all the organic bounty that Ojai had to offer. This ranged from vegetables of all shapes and colors, to stone fruit, citrus, avocados, and eventually more refined products such as avocado oil, olive oil, fresh juices, and so much more. The garden became so abundant that its abundance became a problem for us.

We were growing more food than we knew what to do with, and we realized that to keep this project going, we would have to begin serving a community larger than our own neighborhood. The first sales of produce were to places like Rainbow Bridge, Ojivallian, Noshola, and Farmer & the Cook. While we ended up serving what feels like so many restaurants, stores, and food businesses in the Valley, we will always be grateful to those first initial businesses that got us started so long ago.

Over the years, the community requested more from us. This was never more clear than during the years of the pandemic when food processors, grocery stores and supply chains all broke down. Suddenly everyone seemed to realize the value of local food production rather than relying on large scale food in the large-scale food industry. And this planted an idea to serve the community at a larger scale. The project would have, the project would have to become more of a business and the community would guide its direction.

And thankfully as it always had they spoke clearly. We began delivering farm boxes to approximately 350 addresses in Ojai, Miramani, Oakview, and even a community drop in Ventura. As COVID ended, community desires shifted slightly away from the farm box deliveries and more back towards real world experiences. For Ojai Roots this culminated in our time as a vendor at the Ojai Community Farmers Market.

Here I met so many people that we had not had a chance to meet by dropping off a farm box at their doorstep. The farmer's market taught the value of experiences and the community's demands for it. Finally, Ojai Roots could provide samples, interact with our community and share passion. But this all ended at 7 p.m. each Thursday. When we had to hurriedly repack delicate peaches and unsold lettuce heads that have been misted for hours, attempting to keep them fresh.

And it was in the Ojai summer heat just so they wouldn't go to waste. These first years were difficult for the business financially and involved very long days in the dirt, sun, wind, and rain. Just like it had done throughout childhood, the community encouraged through these times and continued showing a desire for long-term food, hospitality and farm business.

I hope that Ojai Roots may serve as an example of how complex systems involving farming, water, food and environment can be thoughtfully integrated with and supported by neighbors, visitors, community businesses and local government. In many ways, Ojai already serves this example. And we are all fortunate to call it home. Bringing things back to this evening, what actually brings us here now is neither the beginning nor the end of the Ojai Roots story.

We are all here tonight for far more technical and slightly more boring reasons. Here's a little history on the technical stuff that brings us here. In setting out to open a farm shop, Ojai Roots had already had many years of experience and a sense of the community's desires. However, even for an established business there were many uncertainties in opening a permanent farm shop. No business plan can fully predict with complete accuracy the customer demands, community desires, and real world logistics of operating.

Because we would be operating at a location where a previous business had existed before that meant inheriting an existing permit. Looking over the permit, it wasn't tailored specifically to our business and it had existed before so that meant inheriting an existing permit. It would work, looking over the permit it wasn't tailored specifically to our business but it would work to launch the business and operate within its requirements.

But beyond being a business owner I knew that I was first and foremost a neighbor in fact I grew up just down the street from Montgomery Street more important than technical details were our core values as members of the community and neighbors to so many for so long. Respect, courtesy and professional conduct these are the core values of Ojai Roots and the values we instilled in each and every one of our employees who I am so proud of and immensely grateful for some of which are here The employees make this business possible and watching them develop responsibilities, skills, lasting relationships with so many members of our community has been one of the greatest sources of pride.

So before getting to the exact requests up for discussion tonight if I could just take a couple more minutes I'd love to show you some of the photos collected over the years which document the transformation of those first seeds planted as kids and the journey of building Ojai Roots into what it is today. I can walk over and show it to you.

Is it possible to put this on a screen so that everybody can see

it?

What we could do is take public comments and then come back to the presentation. How would that work out? I will open the public hearing at this time, and I only have one card And that is from Bill Miley.

I don't have him OK, I am. I asked everyone to fill cars. Oh thank you.

OK, you have lots of time to do that. Mr. Miley

Hello. I've been involved in this for a long time. I've been here 55 years, and I saw that first building 20 or so years ago when they built the first story Tried to build the second story. Stopped, became a derelict and I don't know how many months it was there so somehow when the city worked out a deal with somebody to complete the second story And it became a little business. And they got a commercial zoning, spot zoning in an area that was residential with businesses like retirement homes and such and multi-zoning for the Oaks.

I do want to recognize because I've read all the material and the public comments. The positive comments from families and children about the services that OI Roots is providing and it's developing and adding. It's wonderful. So, OI Roots suffers from a conflicted past planning zoning decisions The first building I just told you about became a derelict. City's effort, Triple One Ramble experience and the neighborhood conflicts? That was a mess. I was involved in that.

Right now this request is designed to make the neighborhood disturbance even worse! There are no buffers as required from businesses to other zoned areas, to residential areas. Walls, distances, trees, whatever. They want to expand the hours from 7 in the morning to 10 p.m., it's a residential zone adding up to 35 guests outdoors? It's a residential zone neighborhood!

It tells me the applicant has not placed themselves in the position of the neighbors to look at it from their point of view. And they want to add liquor, 40% alcohol? People when they drink also lose their hearing so they speak louder! So it seems to me that in your resolution under whereas, whereas, whereas. Number three is 100% wrong. It says, would not create significant noise traffic or other conditions or situations.