Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 06:00, and we are going to open the meeting of the OHAI Planning Commission. We will start with roll call. Sheri, would you please call the roll? Chair Murphy? Here. Vice Chair Chesley? Here. Commissioner Reich Smith? Here. Commissioner Steward?

Here. Fred, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance, please? Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda this evening?

No changes.

Okay. Then we will move on to public communications. This is the time that is set aside for the public to address the Planning Commission city business, on items other than our scheduled agenda items. Matters raised at this time may be briefly discussed by the commission and will generally be referred to staff and or placed on a subsequent agenda. Under state law, other than for emergency items, no action can be taken at this meeting.

Are there any people in the audience who care to address the commission at this time? Seeing none, Sherri, is there anyone online? No. Moving on to the consent items. We have the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of 02/18/2026. There any discussion? Then the chair would entertain a motion at this time.

I make a motion to pass the minutes from February 18.

I second. Roll call please, Sherry. Stewart. Aye. Reschmidt. Aye. Murphy. Here. Jeslie.

Aye.

Okay. We are moving now to disclosure of site visits and ex parte contacts. We have two items on the agenda this evening and we're going to address them both at this time. Jonathan?

No no site visits or expert contacts to report. Brad?

No. None on my end. Do I need to mention at this time? Recusing myself. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. No. None on my

visited both sites, and I had communication with the property manager of Ojai Olive Press next door to Ojai Mountain Farm, but nothing other than what was in the letter that was sent to all you.

Thank you. And I have previously visited both sites and have had no ex parte contacts. At this time, we'll open the public hearing for item one. And I do have one card but no name. So, if you would like to claim your card at this time, come on up. It's the about, it says.

This on the Ohio Mountain Farm?

Yes. Okay. Item two. Pardon?

Oh,

yes. Of course. I'm sorry. You get to sit down again for a minute. Okay. We'll hear from the staff on this item first.

Presentation on the item.

Yes. Yeah. I need to recuse myself on the issue related to the Ohio Mountain Farms. So I'll

And the and state the reason for the recusal as as it changes.

I have a conflict of interest regarding mister Yanow.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay? Yes. Alright. Thank you. Good evening commissioners, community. My name is Lucas Seybert, Community Development Director for the City Of Ojai. The item we have before you tonight is actually an item that is returning to this body. This body first reviewed this item in December. At that time, had comments and had sent this to the Historic Preservation Commission.

The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed this item, provided comments as it relates to revisions that were made that are before this body tonight. I would ask for the architect, I know we have a PowerPoint presentation to kind of walk through the bits and pieces that have been revised. And essentially, the revisions themselves talk about removing and reducing the oversized umbrella that was there previously as proposed and now we're looking for more of a consistent umbrella format which is consistent with that plaza area. The fencing material was changed really from a wood to a metal which is also consistent with a neighboring outdoor dining facility that already has that same design. So it's looking to kind of mirror off of that as well.

And then identifying the outdoor dining boundary area. So those are the three things. The one thing that wasn't at the meeting in December that wasn't allowed to be discussed because it was identified as being off the table is the freezer. So I wanted just, I know it's identified in the staff report, just want to give some clarification and some information on that before I have Patrick come up and kind of walk through the revisions that were made as he did with the historic preservation commission last year. So the freezer that you are seeing there at the site currently was reviewed and approved through a ministerial process referred to as a zone clearance.

That zone clearance this body had identified and really kind of to a certain degree challenged that review. We had legal take a look at that and then identify that that actually that actual process that we went through was not an appropriate land use process. Really the DE or Conditional Use Permit or even something reviewed by this body is the appropriate land use process. Historically, if you look at Zone Clearances, the Zone Clearance itself was adopted adopted during, really kind of in 2004 with a fairly significant code update that took place during that time. And during that time, it was, it progressed into three different ways in which to review items from a land standpoint.

At least that's the way in which it's been kind of identified to me historically here. The first is the zone clearance, which is kind of a check-in one sense to the land use piece that has already taken place or for those ministerial items that the staff can then review and then move forward with that are non controversial. The second way in which to review items is through a director's exemption. A director's exemption or even a minor conditional use permit, those are all land use related pieces that rise to the level of the director or staff reviewing, authorizing that review and that review then being sent out to this body as well as City Council for their review, courtesy review as well. The third way in which to do and process applications from a land use standpoint is to simply send it to this body or to the Historic Reservation Commission or even directly to City Council depending on the merits and the project itself.

So those are the three avenues that I thought and was understood that we had in terms of moving forward. The first one that I just mentioned which is the zone clearance is off the table. We have been doing that on others previously and that has basically stopped. After getting legal advice on our process and procedures, we have pivoted away from that. Being that, as it's been said, the freezer itself is being identified as non conforming.

Meaning, that zone clearance was authorized and signed off by myself department in June. And not only that, but there was a tree permit that was signed off by myself in May as well. Both of those pieces. Now the tree permit actually follows guidelines for the tree ordinance. The zone clearance was really the inappropriate and inexcusable process by which we went through.

So I wanted to clear the air on that. I know we can have a conversation on it but in terms of this body making recommendations or identifying a path forward for the freezer, actions cannot be taken simply because it is a non conforming use by the way in which the land use exists today.

Did you say can be taken?

Cannot. Cannot. Cannot because it is considered to be non conforming. And I'll leave it at that for right now. What I would like to do is to move on to, and we can certainly have that Q and A piece, but I'd like to have Patrick come up and speak to the items that have been revised as a part of the outdoor dining permit piece.

Okay.

I've got a PowerPoint here I'll pull up. Give me a second.

So thank you very much for your comments at the last hearing. We took this to heart, made changes to all the plans per your comments. One of them was you wanted to have a larger view of the entire area of where we are going to do the work. So we created this site plan showing the existing adjacent outdoor dining spaces plus our proposed area. We also added the areas of the various outdoor dining spaces.

So you can have a comparison versus what we're proposing and what's existing there. Really no changes to this plan. It's really when we get into the elevations, the details that you'll see most of the items addressed. You asked for a plan that was much clearer on the existing area that was from the previously approved CUP, the existing patio plan with the kind of temporary barriers that are defining which also define other outdoor dining areas in the plaza, and then our proposed plan with an overlay of those two previous uses and areas and borders. We revised the plan so now our elevations are metal or the railings are metal to match the adjacent outdoor dining area rather than the larger canopy umbrella that was to cover the entire patio.

Now we just have standard market umbrellas, which are in compliance with the guidelines. We're also, you know, colors that are more compatible with other umbrellas that are in the plaza. And so that's that was really our big change. And then we also changed our outdoor furniture as well. So previously, previously, we we had had some colorful tables and chairs, and now we're going with much more typical seating and tables.

And you can see in the rendering, we also show the revisions. So you can see that the railings look quite nice. There was a concern about them being permanent. We actually designed them so they could be removed in the event that there might be an occasion in the arcade that would need it. And these are just the details showing how we would not be affecting the existing brick pavers, so those would remain. And you can see that the level of detail we've already put into the railing design and just matching the existing.

And

those are the revisions that we made.

Do you have questions for him? I have one. Yes. Okay.

So the details just shows bolts going into the ground for the

Yeah. Underneath the existing brick pavers, there is actually concrete slab. So the pavers where they would go in would be pulled up, they would be salvaged. So at any time, they'd go back in. And then we would just attach them to the existing concrete slab so they could be just unbolted. And then we have a design actually for where we'd have veneer, brick veneers that would go over that area because I noticed some of the other outdoor dining areas where the railings are, you can see the concrete below. And we didn't want that. We want it to look like it really did belong there.

Nice. Thanks.

What's the in the rendering, it's really hard to tell. I mean, it's hard to see it until you get to the renderings. But on, I guess, it's page yeah. That one. So the the portion of the top left rendering, there's kind of this like portion of area that's like just just surrounding the tree and going back to the building, but there's no seating in it to the right hand side there?

Correct.

The yeah. What's so what's the use of that area?

That's for potentially future seating, but that would have to come back here to get approval for that. Okay.

And then is it just in the you guys have some seating outside of the fence? Is that just?

That was in the rendering but it's been removed. It will not be part of this.

Yeah. It's not in the plan. Okay. And I also it's a little you know, one thing I didn't notice, I think the scale of your the original one is actually different.

I noticed that today.

I mean, I think so oh, but I see it's overlaid here so that's fine. You know, I think I guess some questions I have, although I don't know if there's so much directly for you, but maybe just to try to discuss them is, you know, that area that we're talking about on the side there as well as this kind of, I guess different question but up for discussion about the freezer. You know, so there's a lot this this this this patio is getting larger but a big portion of that is not currently planned to be used for seating?

Yeah. I think the concept from the owners that that's an area where kids can play while while their parents are dining.

I see.

So

it's Okay. Just

It's really kind of Yeah. It's really for the kids.

I see. Okay. That's the use of it. But then also the freezer is also taking away as obviously some square footage where seating possibly could be.

The freezer is in an area that has always been fenced in. So it's it's it was it's never been seating. Seating.

It looks like it kind of overlaps in your overlay. But that will It's maybe not so much space. So it's really only It's a minimal amount of additional seating and it's mostly this back area. I guess just the question is if we're, you know, not to be, like, against making the patio larger, but if we're making the patio larger just to make sure there's, like, a reason, you know Right. For that enlargement to encapsulate, I guess, this tree and grow in that way.

So I think those are my only questions about about that. I don't think I have any other questions about the umbrellas or the materiality or the the railing. It seems it seems more in keeping. So that that seems good. I think it's just to make sure that we feel satisfied that like the the enlargement of the patio, you know, works with works with the area back there. Are

you going with tables for two or tables for four?

There will be a combination of two tops and four tops. So, yeah, tables for two, tables for four. The tables for two could be pushed together to create a four top.

How many total seats do you anticipate? 20 indicating 38, and I couldn't figure out how that was how you were going to arrive at that. So you're saying 28?

I'll say 28 to 32, depending on how they put tables together.

Put two tables of two together, are you going to get four seats?

You are going to get four seats. But there is also the communal table in the middle. Yes. So potentially people could sit on the ends, they could bring some more seats over to that. Okay. On how tight they want to be with there. But my assumption is 28.

Okay. That table in the center is for six, presumably? Is that Yeah. Okay. Do you have any more questions for I don't have your name. I'm sorry.

Oh, Patrick.

Patrick?

And you show that it's off of the kind of closest rock bench, it's four feet. Do you have any idea how far it is off of that kind of like, I don't know, gateway structure? I don't think it's dimensioned anywhere, but I

It's not. We put a dimension on because that was the one that had the greatest concern. Sure. Okay. Is that when commissioners mentioned bringing their child through that area and just want to make sure it was wide enough.

Right. It's wide enough. It's probably about eight feet or something like that. Okay. And the dash line, you just I mean, the dash line is just sort of showing the general area but the actual area of use is the double the light double line. Yes. Yeah. Correct. Okay.

We've kind of turned this around. Thank you, Patrick, for your introduction. Now we'll open it up to the public communications.

Thank you.

Yes, open it up for public. Yes, public comment.

Okay. Do we have anybody who would like to make a comment at this time? Sherry, presumably still

We should have a card.

Well, I have a card that says OMF patio and no name on it. Okay.

Thank you very much. Good evening. There are so many issues with this project.

Could you

give us your name, please?

Pardon me?

Could you give us your name, please?

Oh, my name is Craig Walker and I'm a resident of Miramani.

Thank you.

There are so many issues with this project, it's hard to know where to begin. The alterations to the plaza behind 242 East Ohio Avenue which include a walk in freezer, large electrical panel fence and expanded outdoor seating area should be reviewed as one project. CEQA doesn't allow piecemeal segmented reviews. CEQA is designed to bring clarity to the discussion and this process has confused everyone. The bottom line however is that neither project has had a proper CEQA review which is required by law.

And I want to remind you that a historic resource in CEQA includes not only the building itself but its immediate vicinity or the surroundings. And this project is definitely right in the immediate vicinity of an historic district, historic buildings, historic properties. There's also more than just historical impacts that should be studied. If you've gone down there and heard the noise from the freezer, 58 decibels continuously. I don't see any mention of that in the administrative report.

The outdoor seating proposal under discussion tonight will add significantly to the overall encroachment of Ojai Mountain Farm onto the plaza. When you add it all up, it's a cumulative impact of 900 square feet, 2.5 times the size of the original CUP. The total square footage of the CUP should remain where it was originally at three sixty square feet. If they want an outdoor walk in freezer and storage area, it should come out of their CUP and not deed them additional space to take up on the plaza. The plaza is maintained by the Plaza Maintenance District consisting of all the businesses surrounding area.

When you give away an area of the plaza to one business or allow them to create permanent exclusive structures on the plaza, you are requiring businesses as far away as Hipfigen to maintain a privately used area that doesn't benefit them. In fact, there was no meeting with these businesses to discuss this project before it started its journey here. Considering the previous seating of additional plaza space and the significant impacts to the historic character, I suggest you deny the new CUP and, but allow them to use the current one, making sure that the CUP should keep the same boundaries as the original. There should be no blocking of pedestrian flow or sight lines towards the west end of the plaza. No seven foot fence should block views of the historic brick building.

There should be no encroachment onto the plaza behind adjacent properties. Require only individual movable tables and chairs. Use the existing metal barriers. They reflect the proper style and are movable. And just make sure that all the the historic guidelines in the plaza maintenance guidelines are followed in terms of how there's a look.

It's we're supposed to be a Spanish village theme and would appreciate it if you would make sure it stayed that way. So and I think finally, I just consider it a real tragedy that they weren't able to find a way to preserve that mural, which is something people have enjoyed as children all the way from 1945 when it was painted. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would care to make a comment at this time? Sherry, still no one online? Yes. I went ahead and allowed him. Larry. Okay. Larry.

Hello. How are you? Hope everyone's well tonight. If mister Walker is correct regarding CEQUA, then that should be taken into account. If he is incorrect, then obviously you can ignore that. But regarding historic maintenance in Spanish Village, that should be taken into account. But more importantly, the freezer. The freezer's there. It was given. It was provided.

It was signed off. That's walked that's on. However, there is no reason why it shouldn't be made to look like the rest of the plaza, red brick, mortar mix, wood, whatever. Make it so that it blends in to the the the property it's next to, the wall. Make it look like it's part of the facility, that it's always been there.

Not that it's a metal box surrounded by a wood stockade fence or however nice it is. It doesn't matter if it's surrounded. It should look exactly like the building. That way when people look at it, it looks like it's part of the I call it the arcade, the plaza, whatever you wanna call it. It should not look like it doesn't belong because that's part of the historical, that's part of the ambiance, it's part of the Spanish architecture, it's part of the reason why people come to Ojai, the Spanish revival, what whatever.

It shouldn't look like the back of a strip shopping center with a metal box, with a metal vent coming out of the roof. That can be taken care of. It can all be taken care of by architects, by, inventive scenario creators, scenery creators. We have enough scenery people here from LA. They can make it look like it's part of the facility. It's not that difficult. The rest of the fencing and all that, he wants to expand his business. You get an extra chairs. If that works fine, that I'm not more concerned about. I'm more concerned about the metal box looking like it doesn't belong there.

Because now the next person who wants a freezer or a shed, it doesn't have to look like it belongs either. Everything should look like it's part of the scenario if that's the if that's the, visual that we're trying to create. Alright? We want people to come and look at the arcade like it's all one parcel, one piece. And thank you very much, and have a nice evening.

Thank you, Larry. Okay. We will close the public comments at this time and turn it over Wait, to Bill Miley just raising his hand. Oh, have another one? There we go. Okay.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes.

I'm I just heard Craig Walker talk about the sound level coming from the freezer, 58 decibels. The ambient sound level in that area, I'm sure, is less than that. And it's occasional, people talking, people laughing. If you have a piece of machinery that is constantly producing a level of sound beyond what is normal for that area, it can be very annoying and disturbing. And that issue in Ojai should be of real concern to the commission.

We are basically a quiet community. We try to be quiet. And this level, I would suggest, would automatically mean it should not exist. Thank you.

Thank you, Bill. Is there anyone else? Sherry? No. Okay. Thank you. Then at this time, we will close the public hearing and turn it over to the Commission for discussion.

Can I just respond to the CEQA piece because

Yes, we would like to bring that up first?

Thank you. So California Environmental Quality Law has two paths. The first path is when staff looks at a project, we look at whether or not it fits into the category of it being exempt. Meaning it doesn't fit into the Sequel box. It doesn't get evaluated from Sequa.

Instead you look at it from the standpoint of what exemptions exist or categorical exemptions exist within the body of law of Sequa that you can apply. Here, we've identified three. Three categorical exemptions that apply to this as it exists with the expansion as a pre existing use. Going into the box of it being either a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration or even a full blown EIR with overriding considerations. If it fits here, it never makes it over to this area, if that makes sense.

Alright, so in terms of it being a part of CEQUA, is not. We've identified it as being exempt from CEQA. Not that it needs to go through the full blown EIR or MND, not true in this case.

Could you tell us why it was considered exempt?

Yes. So if you look at the staff report and more specifically even the resolution, It identifies it as a minor alteration to an existing public or private facility. Clearly fits within that categorical exemption. That's the first one. If it fits into that one, then these other ones are just an addition to.

Let me give you an example where there could be an argument for us going through it and it fitting into the CEQUA box. If you're modifying the facade of a historic building. Absolutely, it fits into that. We got, we're looking at that from it fitting into that box and we start asking questions that are beyond the scope of what staff can respond to. So we split, we start looking at experts.

We start reaching out to historic architectural historians that put together historic resources report that then drill down how we evaluate it moving forward. Does it still fit into the CEQA exemption box? Maybe not. Maybe there's something that needs to be reviewed and clarified and mitigated to a certain degree. But to assume that the item itself is an EIR is incorrect.

The way in which you evaluate this is you first look at it from the standpoint of it being exempt. Outside of the box of CEQA. So identified as as a CEQA classification or discussion, but outside the realm of it going into a negative declaration or a mitigated declaration, negative declaration or even an EIR with overriding considerations. So I just wanted to, I keep hearing that it's an EIR, immediately go into an EIR, Not, not true. You instead look at it from the standpoint of it either fits into a CEQA exempt box or it fits into the other three categories I just identified.

Do you have questions about that, Jonathan?

I could see that So if there is something about the project that it's normally exempt, but because it's a historic structure and this is an area right outside the historic structure, it could you could take it out of the exempt status because of the very nature of it being historic and if if there are considerations, you know, at hand, you can bump it out of that status because it's would have

to be

something that identifies it as being significant.

Right. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Any kind of significance. So it is possible to say this is a significant impact to this historic structure. I mean one could argue that.

If we're talking about the freezer that's potential. However, the freezer is not a part of this application that we're taking forward. Is it an informational piece that's been identified within the staff report? Is it identified as it's being a non conforming use? Yes. Is it something that this body can consider tonight? No. That makes sense.

Okay.

Okay, I have so many I feel sorry for the applicant actually because I think there were so many things that went wrong with this project. One being and I've said this over and over but I think that we have ordinance and it's not CEQA related, but it is related to piecemealing. And it is section 10 dash two eighteen o two. You can look it up. And what it is is an ordinance that says if you have multiple permit applications the applications have to go.

So if you have a tree permit, a CUP, a D, you know, and a something that might be a director's exemption, whatever, a combination of permits. One might be able to go to the director but if there is multiple permits, they have to all, all those things have to go to the planning commission. They have to go to the highest permitting authority. If it's a tentative map in there, it goes to City Council. But all these things should have been brought together as one to the Planning Commission.

The tree permit, I know you did a zoning ordinance, I mean a zoning zoning clearance, but, you know, if that would be a CUP, and it would have gone with this amendment to the CUP. So I'm seeing it as this is a CUP, and it's outdoor dining. It's a new business coming in. We're gonna look at the tree permit. We're gonna look at the freezer. We're gonna look at the outdoor dining expansion. That's how I see it. That's how it's been done in the past here. So this is really frustrating. And one and the other thing is where is public works in all this?

The encroachment. You know, how did did the applicant know that they have to do an encroachment permit, a a dining permit. I mentioned that at the last meeting, and I'm just I'm just floored that this isn't happening. So I'm I feel bad for the applicant, and and and as far as this outdoor dining, I think the umbrellas are fine. You know, they are great.

You listen to us and I appreciate that. I think the chairs are fine. No problem with that. I think the fencing is actually fine. I think I prefer the movable panels in this area because one you are asking to encroach into the neighboring space. It is public plaza but it is right in front of the neighboring building. And what if they want to come in and do an outdoor dining permit? I think it is fine to let these guys go in. Are the first in. They want to have outdoor dining.

I think that is excellent. We all love sitting outside under the oaks. So I am okay with that. But the panel allows for we could condition it if the other tenant wanted to or building owner or whoever, business wanted to come in. We could say, okay, Mountain Farm, you have to move over now.

Ojai Olive Oil wants to use their outdoor dining. You can do that with movable panels. So is not a deal ender for me, the fencing drilled into the plaza. I have walked around behind you, Mayberger, you can see where the fences were moved and the bolts are still there. So that is annoying to me.

It is like that should have been replaced. Know, when those bolts are cut, you need to replace the paver. This is, you know, we want our plaza pristine. We put a lot of money into it. And I just think that that is an issue and when you have an encroachment permit that can be a condition.

It can be a condition of the CUP too but this is something that the encroachment permit requires an annual review. If they're expanding, sorry buddy, you got to, you know, bring it back to what was approved. So this is a key element of the outdoor dining. That's just a comment. I do agree that I don't understand why Mountain Farm wants to expand eastward when they have this whole area showing blank.

They can just move their tables there and not move into the Ohio area especially if they are bolting the fence into the plaza. You know if you are going to bolt it, bolt it in front of your own business. I really don't want to approve the expansion and one of the reasons is we have a non conforming structure use of this freezer and we are not allowed to expand non conformities. In fact, our ordinance, encroachment ordinance or non conforming use ordinance says you cannot approve something, you know, expand the nonconformity. Well, I see this as an expansion of a nonconformity because I am looking at it holistically.

You know, we allowed something, should not have been there. Maybe the business shouldn't have gone into that space if they couldn't accommodate their use there inside the building. All these things, I just think we need to look at it holistically. Our ordinance says we should do that. CEQA says we should do that. So I am not comfortable with this expansion. Am not. They have CUP or yes for outdoor dining. They have the panels. They can sit outside.

I would approve the umbrellas. I think they look fine. The tables and chairs look fine. The fencing even is fine, but I just don't like the fact that they're bolting it into the ground on, you know, not within their realm.

Yeah. So They did say that they would have pavers available if they had to move it. But to your point, it's like

Yeah.

They're automatic they're immediately taking over an alignment that's not really aligned with their with their building.

Right. But they can return it to its original They could.

Okay. Yeah. Conditioned. I mean it hasn't been done in the past in the plaza and I don't know who is minding the store.

Right. Yes. That is the problem The down the

other thing is I would approve this expansion with the with the fencing and everything on a condition that they remove the freezer.

Mhmm. Right.

That may be

Go ahead.

Something that we need to bring Patrick up to address. But let's see what what else we have to say first.

Well, I was just wondering. I understand that we can't that the just in thinking of everything that was just said. I mean, I think that like, so what what is the process, I guess, to address the freezer? We can't address it tonight obviously but in discussion, what is that process or is there a process for that?

So as a nonconformity, it could be a co compliance situation

Uh-huh.

Where we look to address. But the nonconformity from an expansion standpoint, I'm not sure that I'm there with you, but I understand the spirit of what you're talking about. The freezer itself had already been and the piecemeal piece I also see where going with that as well and you make a valid point there too. So, from a non conformity standpoint, it exists as it remains right now. So anything beyond that conditioning it, I would recommend against doing that in terms of conditioning the removal of the freezer upon the approval of the expansion.

I would recommend against that simply because it is a non conforming use.

Well that is what, I mean our ordinance states in the non conforming use ordinance, it is the Cities goal to remove non conformities. That is a goal. That is a stated goal of the ordinance. It is right in there. So when you are doing a discretionary permit, that is the perfect time to address the non conformity.

Understood. I'm aware of that one. Yes.

I think that where it's tricky is like when you do the math, it's it's just hard to address it when with it's hard to address these things individually. So if it's okay, it wasn't addressed in the way that commissioner Eischmidt is outlining, but maybe it is our sort of job to, like, try to still do our best to consider it in that way because it's pretty hard when you do the math of, let's say, the CUP from of o seven zero five threes you have 360 square feet. I mean, that plan actually shows 24 seats, you know. This new plan is 28 seats, maybe more depending on but, like, it's a lot more square footage for like a couple more seats. And so the question is why is that?

Well, we know the freezer plays in I mean, I don't think you know, I think the plan pretty clearly shows that the freezer takes an entire four seats away. So that's an issue. And I guess there is this question about the back area where it's like, doesn't really inspire us to I think approve something that goes over even though it's not like not technically a property line, but goes over the kind of line of the buildings, you know. We could imagine the whole maybe back of the arcade area having nice little patios and stuff, you know. Sure.

That could be a possibility. So why would we give this extra space as as it's kind of being questioned? So I think those kind of three things just make it hard to talk about this at all without talking without or without dealing with the freezer first then. You know, then the answer is like, I think it's like, well, we can't approve anything until we find a way to to have a different discussion with the freezer. I mean, I think a negotiation is an interesting idea.

I thought the historic commission was also maybe concerned with the electrical panel that was put on the back of the building. Maybe they're okay with that now. I'm not too sure.

I'm sure not. And the tree and the tree itself, you know, we we put a fence around the tree instead of the tree

Right.

Being on the plaza, you know, where you have outdoor dining under an oak tree. Yeah. It's let's put a fence around the tree.

Yeah. Don't quite understand that whole portion of it why we need

I don't know. It it doesn't make sense to me. So I don't know. I think if we can look at it and look at the the arcade design guidelines and the intent there, look at our nonconforming ordinance and try to remove any nonconformities and allow the applicant to have what he is requesting which is expanded outdoor dining, I think that if we condition it to remove the fence around the oak tree and remove the freezer and allow him to put it inside or create space inside his building or some other place. I don't know where that would be but I would be willing to approve it but as it is right now, am not willing to approve the expansion.

Could you, Lucas, expand upon the code compliance? Was that in relationship to the sound level or was it something else?

No, it's in relationship. Co compliance is in relationship to the non conformity. To Not relationship to the noise.

Okay. So code conformity the code compliance could address the freezer situation?

Yes.

With a complaint?

Well, not necessarily. We are moving into a proactive approach. So before it would have been reactive where we wait on our hands basically for someone to complain.

At this time, would it be appropriate to ask Patrick to come back up to discuss the freezer in relationship to how his business

occurs? As the applicant you can do that. It's not a public we're not having to open up public comment at that point, correct? Correct. Okay. So yes.

Okay. Patrick could you please come up and talk to us about what the removal of the freezer would do to the business and what other ideas you might have about handling this?

Yeah. Unfortunately, I'm not the architect for the interior portion of the restaurant nor the freezer. I was just brought in just to do the outdoor seating. So I can't really speak to what the options are for that. I've shown some options for cladding the freezer and wood to match the fence, but that's as far as I'm involved in

that What about Larry's suggestion about breaking it in so that it looks like the building?

Again, that would be something for the the business owner to make a decision about. I don't. It extend

It would extend the noncompliance, but it would be a compromise position. The owner online or anywhere that we could reach him?

I don't know.

Not online. Not online. Okay. Thank you, Patrick.

But you did have question about why we wanted to expand from the previous area of the CUP. When the CUP was approved, we didn't have the accessibility requirements that we do now. So once you start putting in all the clearances we need for our path to travel to move through that, the dining area that was shown on the previous plan, all the clearances we need at our seating to make that work, there's a lot of seating that's going to be out in that patio. And then there was another comment about the movable railing system. One that concerns with the railing system, if you look at page three of the PDF or of that set, you'll see there's a photo of the feet of that railing system, and it's a real concern about trip hazard.

And again, getting into Americans with Disability Act, we always have to be very cognizant of a trip hazard. And that's why when we have stairs, we always have something overhead. So someone who has sight issues is aware that there is a potential for tripping. And so it's just a real it's a liability concern. And also, we just don't want anybody getting injured out there. So that I just wanted to bring those two items up for you.

Okay. Thank you. Have there been any situations in which the plaza has needed more space that we would have to move those fences for in the past?

In terms of like events in the Yes. Only thing I think of is at one point we had entertained the idea of doing some sort of

night

market situation within the plaza. There was interest with the business owners within that area. Staff and myself did some research on it, went to a conference, got some more information, brought it back before council and it was just decided not to move forward with that. So, it would have been like a night market kind of event, basically an event. That's all that I've, that I'm aware of.

Has staff evaluated the sound level of 56 decibels coming from that freezer?

Hasn't we haven't had necessarily had an evaluation. It would be really within the specs of the of the freezer itself. And in addition to that, I'll have to look at the pardon me. I'll look up the sound ordinance, I'm, or the noise ordinance. I'm pretty certain that 56 is within the parameters within the C one. C one allows one of the more higher standards as it relates to noise. So I am almost certain it is 65 I think

I have seen that too.

Residential

obviously has a significantly lower threshold

it's

not would the case seem to me that I wouldn't care to sit at a table next to 56 dB. I'm just wondering if that's I would like to know exactly how many decibels it is producing and I guess I need to go back and listen to it. I I I would think that that would be a problem for the diner, the diners in the in the area. I'm okay with the movable fences that you have proposed based on the fact that you can return it to its original condition. And you bring up a good point about the fence that's there being a bit of a tripping hazard.

I'm good with what you've done on furniture, Although I do think that having black or very dark furniture is in our summer heat going to make those things really hot if they get into the sun at all. The umbrellas are fine. This whole freezer thing and how many to me, it's been approved. The client has proceeded with their business plan based on it being approved. And I think that yanking that approval away at this point just to get rid of a non conformance is not being fair to our business folks.

So that's my thought on it. I would I like the idea of bricking the the if it stays, it should disappear to the degree possible. And the brick sounds like it would do that as opposed to the the stockade.

It's tough to pose, you know, business owner process versus community space, think. Because in the end, both should work happily together. Right?

They should.

So I don't know. I don't know how we exactly. I don't know if that's really our place to that's not really our space in a way. I mean, I see how these things are called, you know, existing on the plans and stuff. I am still not clear on why there's the wood fence around the tree in the back behind the freezer as well, why that's larger or necessary.

So in my mind the fence that was there which I believe the staff just reapproved a new fence in the same location, was that it?

Correct. So just some historical context that wood fence that you are seeing, well that was there was put there during the pandemic essentially. So during the pandemic there was a number of outdoor dining permits in terms of expanding those spaces. This was one of many that we went through the process to get them approved and essentially allowing for that indoor dining to be outdoor. So it expanded this area really to over 1,000 square feet.

Ballooned out and then shrunk back in. I'm just not sure how much it shrunk back in. Obviously, it's not within the parameters of what the 2007 outdoor dining permit allowed for. The fencing that went up there during the pandemic just went up. It went up without any sort of benefit of a permit, but there wasn't a permit that would have been required.

I know we've talked about the the permitting requirements before. There is now a fence permit that's required regardless of whether it's in the plaza or in a residential neighborhood or in the commercial area or within the manufacturing area, that's across the board. Just it's a permit that's required. So, I think from that standpoint, you're seeing that fence there and basically they're replacing what was already there. It was, I mean the way in which we looked at it was before the benefit of a fence permit. But I also see where you're coming from. Right.

It's always in the commercial zone and on public property so a double whammy, it requires discretion, a discretionary permit, a CUP, something. You can't just put up a fence on public property anywhere you want. You can't. You need you need city approval. So we

Understood. But it was done under the guise of the of of COVID and the emergency ordinance that was that was in place there.

Okay. But but it's non conforming. And again, we're, you know, we're trying to get rid of non conforming structures.

Understood. Okay.

Oh, boy. I don't sense that we reached any point of commonality here.

I have a question. It for is staff. Is the issue of the freezer coming back to the city in any form? Is it planned to come back to city council or the decision for that? What's the plan for that? Is there a plan?

There's currently no application in for the freezer to return to this, to this body. But I would identify that if there was an application that identified the freezer, it would be both a director's well, it the process within our code identifies it as a director's exemption and a minor conditional use permit. Knowing that this this outdoor dining area and space came before this body, the same would be, it would be like condition basically from a processing standpoint. So it would be a design review permit as well as a conditional use permit. So design for the cladding somehow identifying design that's consistent as well as the use.

So maybe since the applicant and the business they have an outdoor dining permit right now. It runs with the land, it was approved in 2007. They can start their business with outdoor dining right now. Maybe we say something to the effect that, I mean, is kind of where I'm going. Happy that they're opening.

They can have their new umbrellas, their new chairs, their new furniture that basically keep the area as is until such time they want to deal with the freezer and remove the non conformities, the fence and the freezer and then we'll consider expansion.

All of the pieces that you just identified in terms of not doing the expansion but also identifying the allowance or approval of the design feature changes. When you when you dive into the non conformity pieces, I would caution against doing that simply because it it hinges upon them moving forward with any of those design pieces that you just mentioned on an application coming in for a non conformity. I I get that you're saying and identifying within our code that we should be getting rid of non conformities, but here we're identifying a non conformity that exists. So it would be on the applicants to come forward and willingly apply for both the DRP and the CUP.

Patrick, could you tell us if this application gets denied tonight, how many people can be seated in what's currently there? You cannot? Chair would entertain a motion

Motion. There's, it's, okay, so it's important to understand that there are options that you have here. You can approve the application as is, you can modify that application or you can deny the application. The modifications I think you guys were starting to tease through with some caution. I'm advising you not to include any conditions that identify the non conformity. Nonconformity. Does that preclude you from doing that? No. But it's my recommendation that you not include it.

The part that has me concerned at this point is they want to put up a fence. So, we're being asked to increase the space granted in the old CUP to more space.

And expansion, yes.

And expansion. But it's not just a matter of moving some fences, it's a procedure of removing bricks and installing a fence semi permanently. So it's not a simple matter to that we can just delay.

Mean, Katrina, are you feeling like I don't how do we approve this without the business owner kind of bringing it back to us saying, hey, we're actually, like, willing to look at this whole thing together as a single piece, which is different, I think, than putting a condition on it that is we'd be willing to talk if you're gonna remove the freezer. I mean, is that which would mean denying it, obviously. But, I mean, that's one way, I guess, to go about it also.

It's an expensive

Well, I think to Katrina's point, which he

can them through.

They can keep they can keep doing what they're doing, and they can open the business and use it per the original conditional use permit, which, you know, I I also don't know if I can't remember if these if this is all accurate still since obviously a lot's happened over there. Like, is it actually they can't use the space next to the building? Because it's, it's just not exactly clear. You know, like this area. So maybe they actually have that and they, you know, maybe they're still at 20 people. I mean, you know, it's not what they want, obviously, but it's something and it allows

get started.

To get them started. And if they really want more, then we're sort of saying we we need more, you know, because we're put in a really tough position where it's like a non it's like, you know, I've never dealt with a nonconforming use that wasn't, you know, at least twenty, thirty years old.

Yeah.

Know? So It's a year old. To have what's been done for me. It's just a matter of sort of process and not just because it was like already existing or, you know, grandfathered in that way.

But he was given permission.

Absolutely. Yeah. Mean, I worked at jurisdictions where the their approvals were rescinded because they weren't approved Yeah. You know

Per process.

Per the process. I mean it was approved with a zoning clearance which wasn't the appropriate approval process. So that approval should be rescinded and the application should go forward in the proper manner. Then we can approve or deny it in the proper process. That has been done in the past. Know several different jurisdictions have rescinded permits that were issued in error. I don't know why we are not talking about that. I guess that is for another day. But it happens. Think the issue of the freezer can be rectified.

Not easily. I would like to put this off until we can have the owner address this situation because if they need the freezing capability, it's going to require remodeling and restructuring of the current building. It's historic. I guess that's only for the outside, right? But I be amenable to denying this at this time letting them proceed with with the freezer as is until we work it out and use the space they have.

So I guess

It's hard to know with what's happening inside, you know, as well. It doesn't It's probably a mechanical room, but it also I can't tell if there's already a freezer and this is just like an additional freezer. Anyways, these are things that we would be able to discuss.

If the owner were here, we would Or have a better shot at. Yeah.

Well, sometimes the the spaces in downtown, you know, in the arcade are just small buildings. And if you need more space, you go to a bigger building.

Yeah. You get

a It can't be

mulsory building or Yeah.

You know, we're trying to give away public land so we can make ensure the success of this one business. It doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah. Yes, I agree with that.

So would you like to make a motion about that?

Or you have sit here for a long time. Yes. I make a motion that we deny the project as presented.

Is there a second?

I second the motion.

Discussion?

Further discussion. Lucas, I bet you have something to say.

I do. Here's what I here's what I recommend in terms of the denial that you continue it to the next meeting for a resolution to be drawn up that identifies the denial and identifying the specific

Items to be changed?

Well, not changed because it's, we are denying it as is. The specific justification pieces or findings that cannot be made.

Elaborate on that.

So within this there are specific findings that have to be made. We've identified that within the resolution that are in the positive. Those findings that cannot be made in the positive we will need to go back and have that conversation in terms of those that cannot be made in the positive. And then a resolution that comes back for this body to vote on for the denial. Does that make sense?

Is that is that because they they want the umbrella like they could come back and say we we have the CUP but we still want these umbrellas these Well,

denial for the expansion.

Yeah yeah.

So they can go back to the the original 2007 approval

Mhmm.

And then and move forward with that.

Mhmm.

This from a from a processing standpoint, would highly recommend we do that, not by minute action. That way it's clear.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Okay. Can you amend your motion?

I amend the motion to bring it back to the next meeting with resolution which will highlight all our findings.

Findings for denial.

For denial. Yes.

Okay. I second that motion.

Sherry, roll call. Raj Schmidt? Yes. Chesley?

Yes.

Murphy?

Yes. As a final piece to this, I'll highlight the findings based on the conversation tonight that don't seem to meet the intent of what these findings are are are for. So just know that that will be coming forward at the I you haven't identified a specific meeting, but I'll basically make it for the next available meeting.

So Does this give the does this give the applicant an opportunity to revise anything?

Say that again.

Does this give the applicant the opportunity to change anything in there?

If if if we denied it without prejudice, does that mean that he can come back at another time with revisions?

No. Denial basically means he can't come up with the same same application for an entire year. So he would have to basically do something that would be substantial in terms of a change. So he's he's already got an application that shows an expansion, a change in design, it would have to be something more substantial.

Like removing a freezer? Or is there any other?

Removal, modification, something along those lines. It's got to be, it can't be the same application.

Can we also, so I would recommend him just coming in for a DE for the umbrella and the chairs because I think we are all okay with those if he wants to move that direction. Or I feel like he shouldn't have to go through a DE since we are all kind of already

The alternative to that would be a modification to what they're requesting. Allowing for the expansion but then allowing for the design piece as you just mentioned.

And then

also also but how would that work with the fencing? Because well, couldn't approve the fencing.

Because they need a The plan fencing design you could approve.

The fencing design but they need a new plan.

Yeah. They would need a new plan.

Well, I guess they would be using the original CUP plan.

Yeah. With the panels.

They would install it. Well, they would install it that way. If we're okay with the design of how it gets installed with the with the brick being removed, the thing being attached, the piece piece of brick kind of going around it to hide that, but only in the configuration of the original CUP.

Lucas? That

I I don't know. I'm done.

We've we've we've a lot of cost on to this project. Yeah.

Yeah. We've already voted too.

I mean, I How how big a fence is a question now for the owner? I mean

Hold on. Did we did we already take a

did we already

take a so

the item is is done. We're moving on to the next item. Okay.

So should I tell the owner? That was painful. Did

Sherry say Did you say something, Sherry?

I think the applicant came on the online after we voted.

Oh, okay. Got it.

Oh, that's a shame.

Okay.

Alright. Moving on.

Do you wanna reconsider the vote?

I don't.

Yeah. Alright. Moving on.

Welcome back Brad.

Alright. Let's let Brad sit.

Okay,

we are now moving on to the to item three, a design review permit and tentative met track map for a proposed five unit single story deed restricted 100% affordable housing project on North Montgomery Street. Could we have the staff report on that item?

Yes. I'll set the table here. I know we have a presentation that the design team is gonna come up and talk through. But I just want to set the table. So at the last meeting we, there was an input session which this body as well as the community got an opportunity to kind of vet some concerns that they had.

Those were prescribed and identified within the administrative report where the questions and then responses by staff were put together. And I think there was 11 or 12 of those questions and responses that came forward. I wanted to highlight a couple of those. I'm not necessarily going to go through them all but I wanted to highlight a couple of them. One, I know there was a lot of conversation and discussion in regards to a reduction in the number of units from say five to four.

That was identified within the staff report but I just wanted to put it out there as a part of the conversation today that if this project was to go from aside from the fact that this has been vetted at least from the site plan standpoint through city council in terms of lots of conversations with city council working through the entire process with an MOU and an E and A. There is a larger issue that I've identified here as well and that is they would not if they went from five units to four units, they would go from being qualified as a housing project which affords them a lot of different opportunities as an affordable, 100% affordable housing project to through the density bonus standards to not being able to qualify for that. So there's a baseline for affordable housing projects that requires five units. So if you don't have five units and you come in at four, like the parking, any of those other incentives or concessions that have been identified within the staff report and they've identified within their project description are off the table. So it becomes a much more difficult project to move forward.

So I just wanted to make that clear. I know it was identified in the staff report but I just wanted to have that out in the open. The second piece that I wanted to mention and before I have the design team come up, there was a question, a couple of questions that came in and there's a third piece too. There was a couple of questions that came in in regards to the track map as lays out and I know in the project plans, it's very vanilla in terms of how it looks which is pretty typical for track maps, tentative track maps. A lot of times the lines don't have weight to them or color or contrast and then you're left to kind of scratch your head in terms of what's going on.

So I wanted to to just show what that track map looks like and I put some color to it to give some context. Right. So here you're looking at the site plan, obviously the site is vacant so these are new buildings. The buildings themselves have that orange color. The color that you're also seeing up there is purple.

Those are the proposed new boundary lines for each of the five lots. And then I have a red but it's not necessarily showing up as red up there that shows the boundary lines for the lot itself. The gray areas that you're seeing up in the upper right hand corner and the lower left hand corner, those are easements to allow for access to those two lots that appear to be landlocked but are not because of the ease ments themselves. I know there was a couple of questions as to whether or not when you're creating a track map whether or not you can have zero lot lines. And this is showing where if you do it in this manner, you can have zero lot lines as a five unit project.

Those can be incentives that you can identify or waivers to the development standards. If it becomes four, that now becomes a variance and I'll just tell you I don't see findings for a variance in this case, right. So, we're looking at a land use piece, a tool that's the difference between whether or not it's an affordable housing project that fits into the housing project categories for density bonus versus a variance provision and standards and findings that we're required to make. Okay. There's that point.

And then the third point is comments that came in as it relates to land lease agreement. That is not before this body. That is really a tool or mechanism that the City Council will be wavering through and sorting through the details of. It's not necessary for this body to look at. A general condition as it relates to it, yes, but the details of it, no. It's no different than an affordable housing agreement moving forward. There's a condition that's applied to it and then the details are worked out after the project receives its approvals.

This might be some repetitive information you have to share. So so the track map is necessary in order So each unit has to exist on its own?

The way I say I'll have I'll have Habitat talk through that a little It is the the format by which they operate. Okay. And they can talk. I think we talked about it two weeks ago. Yeah. They can clarify that a little bit more.

Yeah.

Yep. That's their model.

Okay. Okay.

It builds in that Fully. I don't wanna I don't wanna take their thunder. I'll let them talk

Okay. That

Question? No, I had the same question because a member of the public had written to the Planning Commission and that was one of questions. So that's definitely something I'd like to hear about. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this point? I do. So are we, why are we seeing this?

Why is this before this body?

Yes.

Yes. So as a design review permit and as a tentative track map, both of those come before this body for consideration. Now the interesting thing about this is this is a recommendation because as a track map or tentative track map in this case works, this body becomes a recommendation body that goes before city council for final consideration. So that's the process.

Okay.

And so the track map that we're discussing, mean, that would only be as long as the lease on the land.

The ninety nine year lease. Right. The other the other piece that I should mention is as a tentative track map, there is a final track map that would go forward and be considered by City Council, not by this body. So you have the opportunity here to impose conditions that then get forwarded to City Council to be considered and included in the final result.

What happens after ninety nine years?

It goes back to the city.

That's an excellent question that will be identified and teased out through the land lease agreement.

But the tentative track map is permanent. Doesn't go away

at 99 degrees. Yes, The it interesting thing is it likens itself to the similarities to affordable housing agreements. If it's a rental, it's a forty five year minimum and that's let me finish. It's it's a forty five year agreement that can be renewed and is identified as being considered for renewal after that forty five years. The same thing is true for affordable housing agreements that are for sale.

That is a fifty five year agreement that then can be renewed or extended as it gets close to that time. The housing element itself actually tracks these and so we're aware of them and there was one a few years back that was coming up renewal or expiration and we were able to negotiate the continuation of that. So

you're saying the track map is permanent?

Yeah. The track map is permanent. Once it's approved

In a hundred years, however the contract works out, it gets sold to someone else. They would

They could sell it

to They would have it

four to five different people.

It's five five lots.

And then they figure out what to do with the houses that are on top of each

other. It's identified as ninety nine years. The reality is that even with these fifty five and 45, we don't see them as expiring and then they return back to market rate. Although that is presumably what could happen. What ends up happening is you negotiate the expansion or the extension. Yeah. I guess it just means that the tracks are important. They're not just a part of this temporary discussion potentially. Interesting in the years that I've done this and know, commissioner Reichman, I'm not sure that you've seen this as well. I've never seen a lease that also then turns into a track map. It's not

it's

a little unusual.

Yeah.

But it can be done.

It's it's like a mobile home park kind of.

Right. Yeah.

Or it can be.

Where the building is owned but the land is not.

Right. Right.

Okay. If there are no further questions for staff at this point. Did you have something, Brad?

Yeah, I do. Question. Is there anything to know relative to

the Microphone? Owning. Oh. I'm sorry.

Was on there? Sorry. The question is, is there anything relative to know to the individuals who will own these homes? How does the tract map impact their ownership? Does it in fact give them the ability because we're effectively dividing that lot?

You mean does it give them land that they're then required to pay property taxes on? Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. It functions in that same manner, yes.

Yeah. Is there a homeowners association with this five little unit? Who takes care of landscaping

Yeah. And parking Let's let Habitat talk through that. Okay. Because they've got a model by which they operate and so Okay. Rather than me kind of fumble through it.

Do you want the applicant to address us before public comments?

Yeah, let's have them come up. They've they've got a a very similar PowerPoint presentation but then they've got some information towards the Okay.

We will now hear from the applicant. Habitat for Humanity.

All right. Good evening, everybody.

Evening.

Darcy Taylor, CEO of Habitat for Humanity. Just a couple of things and then I will let Lauren talk through a couple of the issues. First of all, we wanted to make sure that you were sensitive to the fact that we heard all the questions and the issues that have come up for the last six years and addressed many of those, including the issue of the two story structure, which we will talk about a little tonight. And then there is a number of questions on here that do not apply. But what we wanted to say was that there are some factual information here that I think it is important for you to know is that when we embarked on this journey six years ago, it was with a partnership with the city of Ojai to provide low income housing for elderly individuals and veterans and people who could qualify.

The intent of the project has always been that as its central purpose. I want to mention a couple of things here that are a part of the design that we put together that are relative to how and why we ended up with what we have here. The important thing is one that we've designed a project where it is affordable for the particular types of clients that we think will buy these homes. They're not single family homes, which would be much more expensive and require much more care, and a different long term agreement related to the lease and the care of the property. So that's one of the things.

Also, it's an opportunity for this project to to specifically deal with the issue of senior housing and veteran housing, which is for the city of Ojai, I think is an important issue that we think this particular project is designed for. Even though if we are unable to find that particular constituents to move into the area, anyone with low income under HUD can qualify. The third thing I want to say here that's important is that everybody who applies for this housing community will have to apply with the understanding that they will fit within the guidelines of HUD and the low income qualifications for the State of California. So it is really designed in a way where it gives them an opportunity to kind of narrow the focus on who buys. And obviously the city council, I think four years ago, asked us to, in our MOU, to agree to allow for first right of refusal for people who either live or work in the city of Ojai, which I think is a great thing to have as well.

The other thing we want to talk briefly about is the fact that the Habitat model requires an issue of sweat equity. The difference between this build, which is designed for the elderly and veterans and certain population that may not be able to swing a hammer or to put sweat equity in, there are other ways for them to qualify for the sweat equity model doing other things that are not physical on a build site. So we our international bylaws require that anybody that owns a Habitat home has to work on that home in some capacity. We provided opportunity and a pathway for people who are elderly to be able to accomplish that either through community service in the city of Ojai and other things that are being done on the worksite, but that qualification can still be met. Lastly, I would say this.

Our whole design, our whole reason for being in Ojai is that we think that this is for us, for Habitat, Ventura County, a stepping stone to our involvement with the city to be able to build other low income housing in this city. We chose this project because we wanted to be able to demonstrate our ability to provide quality housing that's low income and affordable for a specific population of individuals who live and work in Ohio. And because we think we can demonstrate that, that we will get other opportunities to provide low income housing in other markets in the city as well. So we didn't just come to the city and say, hey, we are a low income builder, let us build here. We came with a purpose and a design to one, meet a need that you had, two, provide desperate housing at affordable pricing, and third, to allow for this to be an opportunity for us to get multiple other opportunities to build in the city.

So with that, we want to talk about the designs again and address some of the questions that came up in the last meeting.

Before you sit down, can I ask you to address the HOA the tentative track map? Yes. I know that that is a big question.

Yes. So typically what happens with construction sites, we own the land. And therefore, we are able to control the HOA process through three documents that the State of California allows us to construct. CC and Rs, which which are legal documents that allow for the owner of the property, the land, to hold the homeowners under the fifty five year agreement to certain terms and conditions in order to live in that unit. It can be as simple as, in the CC and Rs, you can't park in your driveway or you can't park on your front yard or, you know, that kind of thing.

Or you can't paint your house a certain color without that being approved. You can't put shutters on the windows. You can't put in some of the neighborhoods we build, you can't put wrought iron over your windows or your door. The CCNRs are designed with that in the simplest way simplest form. And then the more complicated issues in the CC and R are things like you can't have more than, depending on the build, a certain number of people living in that house.

You cannot turn a garage into a living area. So it goes from simple to very complicated. That's one of the documents we use. The second document we use in place of an HOA is that we have maintenance agreements. And the maintenance agreements are designed when we build in the State of California, if you build, I think it's four or more units that are together, you're required to have HOAs.

Well, what we do, the maintenance agreement is designed to provide protection for the homeowners and to ensure that where there is connectable structures such as shared walls or roofs or those kind things, that the maintenance agreement that we draw up, the legal binding agreement, holds homeowners accountable for the areas that they live in. And that's one of the ways that we obviously don't have to have HOAs. The third area on how we control HOAs is we try not to build more than three units that are connected. And if we can stay under that number, then items one and two I just discussed maintain and manage the properties. Once you get to four, the DRE, State of California Real Estate Association, requires us to do an HOA.

And in my seven years as CEO of Habitat and all the units we've built, we've only had one. And we didn't know that we had to do it when we put Port One and Me together. We we sued we sued the real estate association for a simple the simple fact that when you I don't know if anybody anybody here lives in an HOA. I live in one. It's formula.

It's So you plug in a bunch of numbers and it really spits out what that HOA cost is. And it's determined based on the number of units that are in the build. It can as few as five or like where I live, two eighty houses, right? That formula is determined by the number of units that are sharing the HOA and the common areas that are part of that agreement. Like where I live, I have pools, I have gyms, I have walking paths, I have all those things like that that are part of the HOA.

In my Camarillo units, there's none of that, right? There are eight units and when we plug the numbers in to the Real Estate Association, I bet a $100, none of you know how much those HOA fees were.

That's why I don't live in an HOA. So

and and and Camarillo now now just think with me. The HOA fees for those eight homeowners was $517. That's on top of their mortgage.

A month?

A month. And and and and little of this. Right? This is how this is why we sued the real estate association. We got an exception for that bill. We couldn't get

it for

Camarillo. Over the course of the fifty five year agreement, that HOA would have raised over $2,700,000. The reality is the homeowners, low income homeowners, would have purchased those homes two times over. That's why we don't like HOAs for low income families. It's really not affordable.

Quite frankly, it's morally wrong to charge a low income family those kind of numbers to live in a house that they only pay $2.50 for and have a mortgage for, you know, they range from 900 to $1,400 a month. That is why we avoid HOAs and that is the process in which we design agreements that keep us from having to do that.

Before you sit down. So going back to the maintenance, so is there so what happens when, say, the concrete gets cracked or, you know, on the one of the parking parking lots is, you know, failing and

Well, that we don't we yeah. Okay. So we don't have parking lots.

Well, three okay. There's three, six parking spaces that are community. Right? They're on two legal lots. So that's why I'm trying to figure out how how are those getting maintained when there's one unit on a lot with three parking spaces and then another unit on a lot with three parking spaces. Right. But the other three units are gonna be using those spaces.

So that's why the land lease is so important. What and how it it's designed to operate is Habitat homeowners are only responsible for the structure that they're in. The city of Ojai will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping, maintaining the sidewalks, maintaining the parking areas, maintaining all the things that are not part of the structure. Because if you keep in mind, we, our homeowners, only own the structure. They don't own the land.

And so the city, that's one of the things that we're negotiating with our city. The city right now, city attorney, and our attorneys at ReLaw are trying to figure out how that maintenance agreement that's not associated with the actual structure is going to exist. We don't have the the reality is if we don't own the land, then we're not responsible for the common areas. The common areas belong to the city because it's on city land. It's like it's like park.

So so the city wants to retain

They want they want they want the land. Right?

So they're they're responsible for the maintenance.

And that's the and that's the trade off because if the city were to give Habitat for Humanity that land then

Then we would, in our maintenance agreements and our CC and Rs, we would design them in a way where we would have people take care of their landscaping or their there will be a common area or whatever the sidewalks, the parking area, those kind of things. But the city wants to keep the land and that's we are okay with that. That's a good deal. But they are going to be responsible to maintain that property and that land just like as if it was sitting a building was sitting on a park. They got to cut the grass and maintain the parking areas and all those issues that are not part of the structure.

We will take care of the structure and make sure the roofs and all that is taken care of over the fifty five years that the homeowners live in there or the agreement is in place. But the actual land itself and the maintenance of that land will be maintained by the legal agreement that we come up with the city.

Okay. Do each property owners have a lease agreement with the city then, each one? Also, there would be five lease agreements in place?

No. No. Why would they why would they need a lease agreement with the city?

Well, because maybe, you know, just having outdoor storage, you know, we wouldn't allow You can't do that.

You can't do that. The maintenance agreements and CCRs don't allow that.

If there is a failure, say, of a wall between two units, Does the repair cost for that get divided between those two owners?

Between the two the two owners. Okay. And then also in all fairness, our roof contractors have twenty year guarantees for roofs, right? Structures are like that too. All the habitats subcontractors write into their agreements, those kinds of securities to make sure that for a period of time that is covered under the contractors' guidelines.

And then homeowner insurance is part of that process as well. So there's a number of ways that walls, shared walls and roofs, which are the main issues, right? There are some issues that like painting. The city can require us not to paint our units purple or blue. We have got a couple of houses in Cameroon, they call them the Miami houses. One is yellow and one is blue. It looks kind of weird there, but the city said that is the colors they wanted, right? So they can control that over the term of the lease, we write that into the maintenance agreement.

If there were, say, a roof issue and the two owners disagreed about what to do with it, who do they go to?

They go to Habitat. In the CCNR agreements, there was a whole paragraph that talks about lawsuits, mediation, all that's in the CCNRs. And I can tell you, of all the houses we've built, I've never had a homeowner sue or there'd be an issue that we didn't take care of. And quite frankly, these are our people. If someone in Piru, you know, called me tomorrow and said, I got a crack in my driveway.

I'd probably send out one of my construction teams to go out and fix the driveway. These are low income families and they are a part of the Habitat family and we have, are in many ways, feel an obligation to look out for them and look after them as long as they are in that house until they have completed their mortgage process and that house becomes theirs. Then all bets are off. Then they are responsible for that themselves.

I want to go back on the common area maintenance topic for a minute. Are there any other projects in town, any other housing in town that the city of Ohio maintains the common areas on?

Not that I can think of.

Okay. So from a, they're pitching, are we prepared to catch the ball they are pitching to us relative to maintaining the Yeah.

The the difference there is those aren't owned by the city. None of that is owned by the city. Mhmm. They went through our process but owned privately.

But given that this goes forward this would be the first and only project that the city is actually maintaining common areas within a housing development.

Well the first, mean there's other land we own, yeah.

Any other questions before we continue? All right. First of all, just want to reiterate again how much really do appreciate Habitat. And I listened to Darcy speak about the homes that that I get to work on for for these families. It truly is an honor.

And I do greatly appreciate the input and thought that goes into the comments that we received from both the public and the commission as well. So if we can have the next two slides. Again, just a reminder of the context of the neighborhood, several churches around Spanish architecture and also single family ranch style neighborhood along Franklin as well. Next slide please. So in terms of the unit count, that was really a directive that we received from the city council.

And that is what is allowed and essentially by right, the density that the site is entitled to is the five units. And typically with other affordable housing developers that I have worked with in other jurisdictions, they take the density and then with the state law density bonus and especially a 100% affordable, they then look to ways to maximize the number of units that they can provide. And so like Lucas mentioned two weeks several weeks ago that, you know, by rights and this is kind of a unique opportunity and it's actually kind of a great opportunity because I am not here pressured to max out the site. I am not feeling the pressure from the client because I am in this weird situation where my client is Habitat and my client is the City Council. So we have got this balancing act.

We want to make something that is responsible to the community, but also does the most good with this community resource. There are not a lot of city lots that are sitting waiting for affordable housing that can do good prioritized for the residents of Ojai, for the people that live and work in this community. So that being said, we are directed at five units. And I regret pulling the other slide, but we had several different iterations if you remember. One direction was, well, let's get tiny homes on there and let's see what we can do.

And we were able to get up to eight but that was without any parking and that was a no go. So we dropped it down to six and we added some parking, still not enough parking. And let's look at how we can maybe integrate a small modest family home as well. So that's where we're at. And the site design is that that's intended to mirror what you would experience on a single family lot where the driveways act as the parking lot, the surface parking, you know, very rare are people these days able to park two cars in their garage.

My house that ended years ago, it's full of the kids stuff now. So those are pulled away from the corner where the centerpiece of the site is the single family home within creating a courtyard tucked away from the street utilizing the tiny home duplexes. I just want to highlight, Lucas brought up the concessions, the of the zoning rules that with affordable housing we are allowed to break. I really pushed to make those internal and most of those concessions are utilized with the setbacks with these units that are on the interior. So the kind of the rhythm and the pattern of the buildings is that what you would expect of the single family home.

You have typically a five foot setback on a yard, side yard and we are 10 feet from the street corner with that single family home. So we are really not trying to be impactful to the neighborhood. We are trying to be self contained as best we can with the site design. And then one other thing I want to highlight is the concern about safety. We are proposing a three way stop at Franklin And Montgomery as a part of this project to be able to help alleviate some of the traffic concerns, the residents on Franklin to be able to enter and leave their street more safely, and then also to be able to slow down some of the traffic on Montgomery as well.

Next slide, please. And again, in keeping with the context of neighborhood, the material palette were geared towards a composite siding both in lap siding and a board and batten style which is typical of kind of that agricultural style of ranch housing. Next slide. And then the interior side yards. And next slide.

And also invited our landscape architect to talk a little bit about plant selection and planting, Brian Brodersen. Thank you.

Hello everyone. So first of all, the landscape at this point is very preliminary. It is, the intent was to provide shade at the courtyard, the shared courtyard that's between the buildings, and to do what we can to soften and screen the parking since there's gonna be three spaces on each side. There is a civil consideration here. So it's buyer retention that exists on the, at the corner, on both sides of the corner.

And so that would need to be planted with appropriate adapted plants to that particular situation. We are, this has been very educational for me to understand how the arrangement is with the city and with habitat. So given that peculiarity, we would be very happy to work with the city, city maintenance, how the city would prefer to maintain it, because it can be planted many different ways. But the goal was to have trees are the thing that take the longest to grow, and also provide sort of the best benefit in the landscape over the long term. The understory plantings, the shrubs and things can change over time.

But the direction that we take, we're very happy to be led by some city input for that, whether we wanna go with a more native approach, which can create a higher maintenance for the city, or we can do what we would typically recommend, which is a combination of very firm plantings and things that are very understandable to your your your typical maintenance crew. Anyway.

Was the tree master plan, the Ojai tree master plan, is that still a valid document that we use?

Yes, is. I wanted to just, can I, yes it is? That's to answer your question.

Okay. I was wondering if that was referenced at all for this project.

For the landscaping, I don't think so at this point.

For the trees?

Yes, for the trees. It was. Landscaping and trees. No. Can you identify what trees you're proposing here?

Absolutely. So I'm not sure how to point, but the large the largest tree in the center near the courtyard is a is a native sycamore. And then there's another canopy tree there, which is a a tipuana Tipu, which is just at a first go. It's fairly fast growing tree, and it would provide good canopy and some nice flowering in the spring. And then the purple is the native Western Redbud, which I would assume is on your list.

And then there's some other trees which are specific to uses. There is a I think it's which is a very, very common small evergreen tree, which is extremely low maintenance. And that's just to provide some evergreen, some evergreen tree to the thing, because we have a lot of deciduous trees in the plan. And then the other is another redbud. There's both, we have both redbuds.

We have both the native redbud, and then we have the one that has the purple leaves, the forest pansy. So I would be kind of surprised if those trees aren't in your list. And they're not street trees, this is a housing development.

Right. Right. It's still neighborhood context too. The question that I, if I could just pose a question here. There are new wildfire resilient standards that are coming down. Well, they're already, they started January 1. Have you started looking at those, WUI, essentially? I

am

extremely well versed in that because I am the city landscape architect for Agora Hills and the entire city is a high fire zone. I was not aware for this particular project that it was in a, it was rated as a high fire severity zone and that was a consideration. So we would definitely adjust everything if that is true.

So it's not. But what we continue to find with projects like this is that we wanna over deliver from that standpoint. So it's something to consider. It's outside of the high fire zone but

Well, we would What I would recommend would be that we look at The good news is that we have trees in the plan now that are pretty good. We have we have, there are a lot of trees on the plan currently. We would definitely need to reduce that somewhat dramatically because we're really within 10 foot zone everywhere on a project of this type. So we might have some compromises where, hey, do we really want some shade in this location? Do we really want a large native tree here?

Or do we want to do something different? We could change the sycamore to an oak and the oaks are extremely fire resistant even though they are rated as 30 feet from structure.

I would recommend that just on a maintenance issue. I mean, the city is doing maintenance on a sycamore tree, they cause so much leaf litter. I mean, it's beautiful, but it's

Right.

It's And keeping the lot of work.

Keeping the branches away from the roofs would be a constant.

And also you have vines, you have a creeping fig and a Boston ivy?

The the the creeping fig was mainly for the trash enclosure.

Okay.

It's a typical thing we do at trash enclosures just to grab them up a little bit. Those could be eliminated.

Because the Boston Ivy can be can get wild too. And I'm just concerned that

This is another maintenance issue.

Yes. Depends on who's doing it.

Yes. So I would recommend nixing those.

Sure. And the fire department hates vines.

I mean, think they're pretty but they can get out of hand and if you're not on the ivy and the creeping fig, can get out of hand.

Are you all aware of the zero to five foot November zone, which has been rejected by the city of Los Angeles, but is still in play because the fire department is promoting it. On this particular project, you can see we're fairly tight. It would almost eliminate all the planting. I would, I think there are ways to work around that. And the fire department, the reason why they don't say that no amber zone can include succulents and things that don't burn, is because they don't have the sophistication to be able to review the plans that come to them on that level. And so they're just like, I'll just do nothing there.

That's unfortunate.

So just so you know, that's sort of where that comes from. And we would be glad to kind of do the dance about that, just to make sure the project still looks good. Because, I mean, you can see it would be pretty bare without it.

Decorative gravel and succulents would be something you would?

We can do some of that. Of the challenges that we've had is that the bio retention areas, which are sloped and such, they will not hold the gravel and that's at the front of the project. We need to kind of play around with that. But no limit the wood mulch and that sort of thing near the building, because that's the biggest, think the biggest danger is the wood mulch near the building.

Would you look at the tree master plan? And then

I'm not sure I didn't, but I will. Okay.

And And then

also I

think things are going to change around a bit if there's an interest in changing the plan to address the fire severity potential. There's a lot of homes around there that are pretty well treated, so.

Yeah, most of Ojai.

Right, right. And we can, I mean, just changing some species, like the oaks, you know, is a great example of creating a lot of fire resistance right there?

That's what I recommend.

I think as a knock on effect of what you're talking about a little bit. So as I read it, condition eight says that this project should consider enhanced fire safety. And I guess the question would be why aren't we requiring it?

So it's not in the high fire zone. So we can recommend. You could because it's our property, we can require that. We can take it a step

It's condition of our money and now we know additionally or at least new information to me. We have a maintenance expense actually that comes with the shawl. The shawl can be shaded to a shawl, sure. Right. But it seems like as a requirement of that funding we could say that we want this to to be absolutely fire hardened.

I would interject that if you do that, then you won't have any trees. Any trees. I mean it's gonna, it may not be the appearance that you're hoping So, I think there's a way to, that I can work with you for that and make it better for you. But if you do wanna do that, I mean, we can do that also. But once you make that statement, now we're under the

Yes, have limits.

Defensible space and the fuel modification and it will be it won't be a lot there.

Yes. And maybe there's a middle ground that says the roofing requirement some of those

That's already there.

Yes. Some of those other things are covered as part of that and we find that middle ground between looking good, being relatively easy to maintain and not costing the city too much for the people in the city.

Thank you.

Okay. At this point, we will open the public hearing.

I think yes. Yeah.

I thought you were leaving. Sorry.

I I am.

You you haven't.

Well, if the questions come up,

Okay. It's

We first have John Trent.

Good to see you guys. How are you doing? So I'll I'll probably sound like a broken record because I've been saying this since 2019. But and I I just got a bunch of messages from our neighbors. So I think there was, like, five of us, five households that are kind of represented all along Franklin.

Obviously, we're we we like the stop sign approach. I didn't see that until tonight, which is nice. Franklin has safety issues. When you turn right or left out of Franklin onto Montgomery, it is a very dangerous intersection to the cars that are parked along Montgomery. I know we talked about this last time at at nauseam, but I just wanted to bring it up So we have a housing proposal, probably the largest in Ohio's history or at least in the last twenty years, proposed on South Montgomery and Ohio Avenue, which is going to be old Chaparral.

I think they're proposing Ohio Ohio USD is proposing 93 units. So that's probably another 200 cars on Montgomery. It's already full on Montgomery, so that's gonna put more cars. The Becker Group is gonna move forward. I think that's 63 units or so that's probably a 120 cars. So that's all in the downtown area. We have Bryant Street that's gonna go on board. That's 50 units. So that's another probably a 100 cars. So all told, you're probably looking at like, you know, 400 cars to the downtown area.

Already traffic intensive on Ohio Avenue, especially on weekends. It's ridiculous to to that intersection on South Montgomery and and Ohio Avenue is ridiculous. It's just so hard to turn left out of there. It's impossible. So, anyway, traffic is an issue. Montgomery's already got street parking issues where we can't find parking. Franklin, we only have very small lots. We have usually one car in our lots or our guests have to park on Montgomery. So Montgomery is always full. We have businesses that are located in that area.

We have another affordable housing unit right up north of us that has lots of overflow onto the street. So we're real concerned about parking. So anyway, I bring that up again just to kind of reiterate why we are looking to really push for four units with accommodation for enough car parking, parking, at least like eight or six car you know, spots where folks can park their cars. One thing I did wanna ask Lucas, you did mention that one of the hard rules is five counts as a housing project and four would not count as a housing project. But I wanted to see if if that is still a discretion where we could give conditions or we could give concessions.

There you go. Thank you. We could give concessions to the project on our own discretion. Meaning that they wouldn't have the right. It wouldn't be by right for them, but it would be a discretionary thing that the city could provide for them. I'm just curious if that's something that could be done and if that could go to city council as saying, hey, we would like to see four units with conditions for the the concessions. So anyway, that's it. My three minutes are up.

But go ahead if you wanna answer. Can I can I respond? Sure. Five to four would, and that's kind of what I was talking about earlier, take it into the variance realm. And those findings are the strictest of standards in terms of making those findings. Meaning, it typically requires some fairly crafty and creative language for that to happen. Could it happen here? Maybe. Maybe. If we take it from five to four Mhmm. It's just a slightly different process. It's still land use review, discretionary, comes before this body.

You'd still have concessions for parking, you'd have concessions for for zoning or lot lines and setbacks.

You're not held to density bonus standards at that point. So you're looking at it in terms of opening up the entire playbook for for the development standards. All the ones that you just mentioned plus more. So, yeah. Okay. It is something to to contemplate and have a discussion on, but just recognize that those are two different mechanisms that trigger.

Okay.