Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Cottages Among the Flowers – Phase 4 Concurrent with Phase 2

• Staff reported that the request seeks to allow Phase 4 construction to proceed concurrently with Phase 2 to test a new foundation system and install display units.
• Public comments raised concerns regarding historical compliance, watershed protection, and adherence to the original phasing plan established in a settlement agreement.
• The Commission discussed the intensity of construction, noting that while the pinned foundation system is less intrusive, it still involves tree removal and site work.
• The Commission voted to pass a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution allowing the concurrent phasing for approval at the next meeting.

Tree Permit and Zone Clearance (824 Foothill Lane)

• Staff recommended a zone clearance and tree permit for a new residence, noting the removal of nine protected Coast Live Oak trees requires mitigation.
• Public commenters questioned the low mitigation fee relative to the appraised value of the removed trees and requested stricter enforcement of replacement requirements.
• The Commission discussed the discrepancy between the appraised value of the removed trees and the proposed mitigation value, noting the authority to recommend higher fees.
• The Commission voted to pass a motion adopting a resolution with amendments to double the mitigation fee and require a replacement plan for trees that fail within five years.

Proposed Modifications to the Tree Ordinance (Concept Review)

• Staff presented a concept review of proposed ordinance changes, including adding the Black Walnut to protected species and discussing arborist certification requirements.
• Commissioners inquired about the utilization of the in-lieu tree fund and suggested mechanisms to ensure funds are used for planting or offsetting costs.
• The committee agreed to provide comments to staff to be forwarded to City Council for further consideration without making a formal motion.

Future Agenda Items and Administrative Matters

• The Commission voted to cancel the September 16 meeting due to a lack of ready items, moving scheduled agenda items to a tentative October date.
• Staff announced a virtual workshop on CUPs and entertainment permits scheduled for October 28, with costs covered by the city budget.
• The City Council liaison reported that Council intends to review the status and usage of the $33,000 tree fund to seek parameters for its proactive use.

Planning Commission Meeting Summary – September 2, 2026

Call to Order and Roll Call

• The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. Roll call indicated the presence of Chair Murphy, Vice-Chair Chesley, Commissioner Rice-Schmidt, and Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner Stewart was absent.

Pledge of Allegiance

• The Pledge of Allegiance was led by a member of the public.

Public Communications

• The Chair opened the floor for non-agendized public communications. No members of the public or online participants wished to speak. The segment was closed.

Consent Calendar

• The minutes of the August 19, 2026, Planning Commission meeting were presented. No changes or objections were raised. The minutes were approved as distributed.

Disclosure of Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts

• Commissioners disclosed their site visit and ex parte contact history regarding the agenda items. One Commissioner reported visiting both sites discussed that day briefly and having no ex parte conversations. One Commissioner reported previously visiting the "Cottages Among the Flowers" site but not the other site, with no ex parte contacts. One Commissioner reported no ex parte contacts and no site visits. The Chair reported having previously visited the "Cottages Among the Flowers" site and driving by the other site that day.

Agenda Item: Cottages Among the Flowers – Phase 4 Concurrent with Phase 2

Staff Report

• Lucas Seibert, Community Development Director, presented a staff report on the progress of the "Cottages Among the Flowers" project. Key points included:
• The project was approved by City Council in 2007, with a phasing plan approved by the Planning Commission in 2009.
• Condition 27 of the phasing plan requires the Planning Commission to review the project as a public hearing prior to the consideration of Phase 4.
• Phase 1 is complete. Phase 2 is currently under construction. Phase 3 has not started. Phase 4 is the subject of the review.
• The request is to allow Phase 4 construction to proceed concurrently with Phase 2.
• A previous request (September 2025) to connect utilities via Aliso Street was withdrawn because engineers determined utilities could only be connected via Oak Street, which would cut through Phase 3.
• The project is part of a 2023 settlement agreement involving four sites: Cottages Among the Flowers, Mallory Way, South Montgomery, and East Ojai Avenue.

Applicant Presentation

• Jeff Becker (representing the developer) explained the rationale for the concurrent construction request:
• Foundation System: The project uses a "ground frame" pinned foundation system, which is new to the area. The developer wishes to test this system on the two Phase 4 units before using it for the larger Mallory Way project.
• Display Units: Two "Summer" units are completed and ready for installation. The developer wishes to install them to provide a visual example of the final product for the community and City Council.
• Fire Lane and Utilities: Phase 2 requires the completion of a fire lane. The developer argues it is inefficient to pave the fire lane for Phase 2 and then rip it up for Phase 4 utility work. Utilities for Phase 4 will be stubbed in now but not connected until Phase 3 is complete.
• Logistics: The prefabricated units will be delivered by crane from the north (Mallory Way side), minimizing impact on the main site.
• Historical Compliance: The developer stated that a contracted historian is regularly reviewing the work to ensure compliance with historical mitigation conditions.

Public Hearing

• The public hearing was opened.
• Anita Cram: Spoke in opposition. She argued that pavers are not required for fire truck access, that the drilling for foundations is intrusive, and that the phasing was established to limit neighborhood impact. She stated that a professional historian must approve the "Summer" units to ensure they match the historical character of the cottages. She claimed the 2023 settlement agreement contains specific language regarding the interior of Mallory Way bungalows that was violated by previous approvals, and that the Planning Commission is not a signatory to the agreement and therefore cannot alter it. She urged the Commission to adhere strictly to the original phasing.
• Ellen Melhoff: Spoke briefly, expressing confusion about the construction diagrams and requesting more interpretive visuals showing windows, landscaping, and site conditions.
• Teal Rowe (Online): Spoke in opposition. She emphasized the importance of the watershed and wind river on the site. She reminded the Commission that the project was based on an agreement negotiated after a referendum in which 600 Ojai residents signed against the project. She urged the Commission to stick to the agreed-upon phasing.
• The public hearing was closed.

Commission Discussion

• The Commission discussed the staff report and public comments.
• Historical Compliance: Staff clarified that the developer has a contracted historian and a city code compliance officer monitoring the site. Staff noted that the "Summer" units were approved via a Director’s Exemption, which is a staff-level process for smaller projects that save trees.
• Landmark Status: Staff clarified that Mallory Way is not currently landmarked but is under consideration. The Cottages Among the Flowers site is not landmarked but has mitigation conditions in place due to its historical significance.
• Environmental: Staff and the applicant discussed the status of the Lake and Stream Bed Alteration Program application and fish and wildlife mitigation. The applicant stated that a draft mitigation report is being reviewed by consultants and will be provided to the city.
• Construction Intensity: The Commission discussed the intensity of construction. The applicant stated that the pinned foundation system is less intrusive than traditional concrete foundations and that most grading is already complete. The Commission noted that while the work is less intensive, it still involves tree removal and site work.
• Benefits: Some Commissioners noted that concurrent construction could allow the project to be completed sooner, potentially reducing the total duration of construction impacts.
• Process: Staff advised that if the Commission chooses to approve the concurrent phasing, it should do so by directing staff to prepare a resolution for approval at the next meeting. If the Commission chooses to deny the request, it can also direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the request.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to request a resolution allowing the phasing to move ahead with Phase 4 concurrent with Phase 2. The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: Passed.
• The Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for approval at the next meeting.

Agenda Item 3: Tree Permit and Zone Clearance (824 Foothill Lane)

Staff Report

• Staff presented a review and recommendation for a zone clearance and tree permit for a proposed approximately 4,500-square-foot single-family residence, a 728-square-foot garage, a detached ADU, an in-ground pool, and a linear fence/site wall. The zone clearance is a non-discretionary, ministerial permit that meets all applicable zoning standards. However, because the project requires the removal of nine protected Coast Live Oak trees, the application was referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Community Development Director pursuant to Municipal Code Section 41107.
• Staff outlined the mitigation requirements under Code Section 10-2-1802 and 41107. The applicant must replace the removed trees with suitable species of equivalent size or value. The appraised value of the nine removed trees is $119,600, and the total trunk diameter is approximately 125.4 inches. The applicant’s proposal is to plant nine replacement Coast Live Oaks (two 24-inch box, three 36-inch box, and four 48-inch box). The calculated mitigation value based on the proposed replacement trees is approximately $8,815. Staff noted that if the site cannot accommodate the required number of replacement trees, an in-lieu fee may be paid to the city’s tree fund at the discretion of the Director or Commission.

Applicant Presentation

• Brett Ettinger, the project architect, presented the design rationale. He stated that six of the nine trees to be removed are on the west side of the existing home, are in poor structural condition, and encroach over the roof, posing potential fire and insurance issues. The remaining three trees are being removed to allow for grading adjustments to create a usable outdoor living space. Ettinger explained that the replacement trees are positioned to enhance the existing oak canopy, provide privacy, and add four new trees to the front yard for public enjoyment. He noted that the landscape architect, Kaylee Grubb, designed the placement to ensure the health of the new trees and the retention of existing mature trees, including three specimen sycamores and several large oaks.

Arborist Presentation

• Jan Scow, the project arborist, addressed questions regarding the mitigation calculation. He explained that the $8,815 figure is derived from the stem diameter equivalency of the proposed replacement trees compared to the removed trees, using wholesale nursery costs for 24-inch box trees as a baseline. Scow noted that the ordinance allows for mitigation based on either appraised value or total trunk diameter, and the Commission has discretion in determining the final requirement. He stated that smaller trees (24-inch box) generally have higher survival rates and are better suited for establishment in the local climate than larger box trees.

Public Comment

• Leonard Klaif: Expressed concern that the current proposal allows for the in-lieu fee to be waived or deferred, potentially negating the strength of the tree ordinance. He requested that the Commission ensure specific replacement trees are required as a condition of approval or that a specific fine is mandated if replacements are not made.
• Larry Steingold: Suggested that if the site cannot accommodate all replacement trees, the full value of the removed trees (based on diameter or appraised value) should be paid into the tree fund to purchase more young trees for the city, rather than accepting a lower mitigation fee.
• Alan (Online): Raised concerns about root disturbance, soil removal, and the potential endangerment of local wildlife and insects during tree removal.
• Michael Inaba (Arborist): Argued that fewer, healthier, and well-maintained trees are preferable to a high density of flammable or unhealthy trees. He emphasized the importance of proper tree selection (natural form vs. street tree form), irrigation management, and long-term maintenance to ensure tree survival. He noted that the current tree fund balance is approximately $33,000 and that planting costs are typically double the cost of the tree itself.
• Catherine (Online): Stated that replacing trees solely because the homeowners dislike their position is not a valid reason and suggested obtaining a fire department report to verify if the trees are actually a hazard.
• Teal (Online): Questioned the math behind the mitigation fee, noting that the proposed replacement represents only a fraction of the removed tree diameter and value. She urged the Commission to follow the tree ordinance strictly.

Commission Discussion

• The Commission discussed the discrepancy between the appraised value of the removed trees ($119,600) and the proposed mitigation value ($8,815). Staff clarified that the ordinance allows for mitigation based on either appraised value or trunk diameter, and the Commission has the authority to recommend a specific combination or amount. Lucas Seibert suggested that the Commission could recommend a higher mitigation fee or a combination of tree replacement and in-lieu fees to better reflect the value of the removed trees.
• The Commission also discussed the placement of the replacement trees, with some members questioning the density of planting in the existing oak grove. Michael Inaba provided additional context on tree survival rates, noting that smaller trees generally establish better and that proper species selection (natural form vs. street tree) is critical for long-term health.
• The Commission considered adding conditions of approval to ensure the survival of the replacement trees, such as requiring replacement if the new trees die within a certain period. Staff confirmed that the Commission can include such conditions in its recommendation to the Director.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to adopt Planning Commissioner Resolution No. 26 with proposed amendments: increasing the mitigation fee to double the proposed amount and requiring a replacement plan for trees that fail within five years. A friendly amendment was proposed to remove two replacement trees from the existing grove/woodland area. This amendment was not seconded and therefore failed. The original motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: Passed.

Agenda Item 4: Proposed Modifications to the Tree Ordinance (Concept Review)

Discussion

• Staff presented a concept review of proposed modifications to the existing tree ordinance, which had previously been reviewed by City Council and refined through two community workshops. Key points included:
• Protected Species: The addition of the Black Walnut tree to the list of protected species due to its role as bat habitat and its identification in CEQA biological reports.
• Certification: Discussion on requiring ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) certification for tree trimmers and removals to ensure proper care and prevent decline, versus creating a city-specific education/certification process.
• Tracking and Funds: Staff clarified that the Community Development Department tracks newly planted trees for discretionary projects. Commissioners inquired about the $33,000 in-lieu tree fund and Public Works’ planting budget. It was noted that Public Works planting is limited by its annual budget, potentially causing the in-lieu fund to grow if not utilized. Commissioners suggested mechanisms to ensure the fund is used for planting or to offset costs for property owners.
• Ordinance Language: Discussion on the complexity of the current fee structure (based on diameter vs. surface area) and the need for a simpler, more comprehensive evaluation method. Commissioners suggested exploring "carrot" approaches, such as offsetting funds or planting native acorns, rather than strict one-for-one replacement mandates.
• Community Forest Management Plan: Staff noted that this plan, updated in 2022, encourages private property owners to plant specific tree species in visible areas but does not mandate them.

Public Comment

• One member of the public expressed concern that the language "encourage" in the Community Forest Management Plan could be interpreted as a restriction on what private property owners can plant in their front yards. Staff clarified that the language is intended as a guideline, not a mandate.

Decision

• No formal motion was made. The committee agreed to provide comments to staff, which would be forwarded to City Council for further consideration.

Future Agenda Items and Administrative Matters

• September 16 Meeting: Staff reported that the two items scheduled for the September 16 regular meeting would be moved to a tentative October date.
• Motion: A motion was made to cancel the September 16 Planning Commission meeting due to a lack of ready items.
• Decision: The motion to cancel the September 16 meeting was passed.
• October 7 Meeting: Staff indicated that three items are tentatively scheduled for October 7, including a DRP, variances, and a tentative parcel map for 216 Park Avenue. Staff advised a commissioner to check for potential conflicts of interest regarding the Park Avenue project.
• Workshop: Staff announced a virtual workshop on CUPs, entertainment permits, and alcohol oversight scheduled for October 28. The cost is covered by the city budget. Commissioners were asked to indicate their interest in attending.
• FlexPath Ordinance: Staff informed the committee that the California Energy Commission has officially authorized the FlexPath ordinance, allowing for its implementation in building code-related projects.
• City Council Liaison Report: The liaison reported that City Council intends to review the status and usage of the $33,000 tree fund and seek parameters for its proactive use in benefiting the community forest.

Public Comment and Adjournment

• Discussion: Andrew Whitman commented on the anticipated arrival of funding from various sources, such as the tree ordinance. He noted concerns regarding the management of the tree population, specifically highlighting the presence of mature trees and the lack of intermediate-age trees.
• Decision: Judy Murphy moved to adjourn the meeting.
• Vote Outcome: The motion to adjourn was accepted, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:28.