Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 6 o'clock, and I'm calling the Planning Commission meeting of August 5, 2026 to order. Could we please have a roll call?

Thank you. Would you please lead us in the pledge this evening, Katrina?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I would like to make a recommendation. We received a letter from Craig Walker, a local historian, and he's also on the Historic Preservation Commission. He pointed out that the Historic Preservation Commission was bypassed from receiving a historic resources report for item number four. He said the report and the project should have come before the Historic Preservation Commission. The report identified that it was potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. For that reason, I agree with him. So I think that should go to the Historic Preservation Commission before i

I have a question, either staff or any of the fellow commissioners. How is this reflective of the 50 year standard in place? Does this property meet a standard

Well, do you wanna second the motion for a discussion purposes? We can't discuss it.

I'll second the motion for discussion purposes, yes.

Okay. Okay, your question? So I'm not understanding the 50-year.

My understanding is that in order for us to consider that issue as a historical issue, there needs to be kind of a 50-year establishment of the PL status there.

Oh, no, there's an informal, and the staff can talk about this too, but there's an informal 50-year guideline that is used when a project comes in to the city. And if the property's not listed on any historic list or landmark list before a discretionary project, you would have an assessment done.

So we wouldn't have the opportunity to see it again if we listened to it. Recommended it goes to historic.

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

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

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

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

Okay. Okay. If we have no other questions or comments, OK. I would like a shortened review of what that motion was.

The motion was to postpone the public hearing for item number 4 to August 19 and directing staff to take it to Historic Preservation Commission on August 13.

Hold on. Yeah, we need to footnote that.

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

We're going to listen to who is here tonight to present. And we're going to listen to the public comments. And we are going to, we can then ask for the HPC to study the issue for the 13th and bring their comments back to us for a final decision on the 19th. Got it.

We're still getting to the committee. We're taking a longer road while we have people here who can give us feedback.

We would love to hear from everybody who's here.

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

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

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

Well, we're talking about the consent calendar, right? Well, the first part is the minutes. All right.

Well, I want to take the second one off the consent. OK. Can we just get the minutes approved first?

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

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

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

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

There's no harm in taking it off consent.

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

I mean, I'll second, I'm open to listening, so. But I think you said we all have to agree anyway, so, okay.

Okay, the minutes. Is there a motion to accept the minutes?

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

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

So it really is the vote today to approve the resolution, correct? Yes, that's correct.

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

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

Thank you, Bill. The next speaker is Bill Mellet.

Thank you. We did ask for the advice of an arborist on the selection of where the plants would or the trees would go. Makes sense that we would also take your advice regarding the type of tree. Do we need to have a motion in order to? Okay, thank you. Yes. Okay, do you have anything else, Bill? No. Okay. I have one other card here that says two, but it didn't, there's no name on it.

Is there anyone else in the audience who needs to speak on this item? Yes, I see a hand wave. Nothing, okay. Is there anyone online? Thank you. Okay, it's back to the Planning Commission. We will close the public hearing. And do we have any questions or comments?

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

By the arborist for the tree's best survival is what I remember us discussing.

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

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

Any further discussion? OK. Could I have a roll call, please?

Yes. OK. Moving on to the disclosure of site visits. and ex parte contacts. Are these for all the items now tonight?

Katrina? Are there any site visits or ex parte?

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

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

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

I also met with the owner of Roots. I also had a conversation with the applicant on item 4 as I had requested a tour and time got away from us so instead we had a conversation. Public hearings. The next item is request for modifications to an existing MCUP 23-001. Could we have the staff report please?

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

Is it possible to put this on a screen so that everybody can see it? What we could do is take public comments and then come back to the presentation. How would that work out? I will open the public hearing at this time. And I only have one card. And that is from Bill Miley.

Thank you, Bill. We have discovered a great many cards. Based on that, I would ask of you to not repeat other people who are speaking. You can just say that you agree with them or agree on a certain point just for the amount of time this is going to take. So we appreciate brevity. The first person whose card I have Is Trent Bastolio maybe? What did I do to your name, Trent?

Thank you, Jeffrey. We could do without the applause. Jody Chapman, Chapman?

Thank you, Jody. Again, we're trying to get through this quickly, not drag it out. Okay.

Thank you, Paul. OK, we have Robert Glover next. Let's just bring your children to Planning Commission night, isn't it?

Thank you, Brett. The next speaker is Jeff Eide.

Thank you. David. Lee Sher. Actually, everybody just said it, and not allowing children is just crazy.

We need you on the microphone is the problem. Would you like to say that to the microphone?

Thank you, Brad. Next we have Lori Brown. Okay, no Lori Brown, all right. Randy, is it Chapman?

Thank you, Randy. We have come to the end of the blue cards. No, we haven't. OK, come on up.

Thank you, Arianna. OK, have we got all the blue cards in from the audience? All right. Is there anyone online, Sherry? Yes, two people. I just put Nori Harn.

Thank you, Nori. We have Mark. Mark, are you there?

Mark Begbie? Okay, let's move on to Andy. Is there an Andy?

Never mind, okay. In that case, we will close the public hearing. We will bring it back to the commissioners for your questions and your comments. Who would like to start?

Thank you, Rhianna. Okay, back to the commissioners. Who would like to start? I see pages of notes.

me first i guess well there's a lot happening here um i i think in some ways we're becoming the charm versus harm committee you know how much charm and how much harm uh can happen here in town a little bit and uh i think what i would mention off the top too thank you to everyone speaking on all sides of the issue and i think for all of us I know when a couple of us who went to the site and did a site visit we're trying to consider the the issue carefully and I think we understand in broad terms what's happening I have a little bit of a different viewpoint on a couple of things that I just want

Okay. And then the other thing to my knowledge, again checking some facts here, type 41 does allow kids and that is out of the purview actually of our committee. That's an ABC regulation, correct?

So that's a little bit off the table, would be my understanding of that, unless we condition something.

Yeah, and I understand that inside the C-1, everyone who has a liquor license in the C-1 is required to have a director's exemption? For outdoor, for the outdoor activity. Okay, so our purview is the patio. Yes. Just to be clear, one way of seeing this, our purview is the patio, it actually isn't the people or the operation or the community that it builds or anything. Specifically, we can really only condition what happens on that patio.

I have a couple of questions that I think the operator would probably be the best person to answer those, but do we know if the kitchen requirements for a Type 41 are met?

So today you have documentation from them that you do have the kitchen for the Type 41? Correct. Okay, yeah. And the real question there that I'm asking is do we have our sequencing correct? Are we getting ready to make a decision or have a viewpoint about something where the Type 41 permit from the ABC, the evaluation in their kitchen, may not be met yet? So I'm just checking my way through this because there's a lot of energy around this one. I have a question about the proximity of the complaint specific to this operator. So my understanding is you have been in business for two years, is th

Maybe it's just me, but I'll just do something radical and inject a little bit of common sense. I'm always concerned when complaints come close to hearings. And that's just me. And so my concern is that there's an attempt to paint an impression. And I would say one way or the other, actually. Just neutrally, when people know we're going to come to the dais here and have a discussion, that I'm leery of complaints that come in hot within that window of discussion. And I'm just mentioning that, actually. There's no follow on. And then I'm going to make one more comment, and then I'm going to paus

I'll continue just to maybe dig into some of the clarifications because I do think that the, yeah, just to better understand. So can you guys help us paint a clear picture of sort of the zoning and land use intents of this site and around it? You know, it seems like, so we have a mixed use zone. So what's allowed in the mixed use zoning, generally speaking? I wish I had the computer available here.

And so then we have commercial. It's a transitional use. Transitional use. And right below it, which is this site as well as the sites to the south are commercial.

Zoned commercial, even though they are, several of them are residential. Yes. Pre-existing the zoning. Okay, can you help clarify this thing that's come up throughout, which is the idea of the surrounding sensitive uses and how that sort of factors into this because I think if you look at it that way I think it's a little bit unclear what we're talking about because it feels like it's a mixed use zone and there's like commercial use here in a commercial use this kind of seems like pretty pretty expected even

I don't know if I have a ton of other questions around that.

You know, I think... Do you want me to move it on and come back?

I don't have any questions in particular, but I... One question is, I don't remember ever for any other restaurant... in town Deciding what particular I don't think it's ever gone to the Planning Commission before What ABC license they could have? It's usually it's alcohol sales. They can have alcohol. I don't know what the difference between two glasses of wine and a margarita like what do we It to me. It's the same So it's either you have alcohol or you don't. So I guess that's where I'm coming from. I think this is kind of an anomaly for us to talk about the ABC type. I mean, have we done t

But to that point, with the way that we want to see this as commissioners neutralizing, actually, for the different opinions in the room, neutralizing for that, really, what this is is a decision over the patio. Whether the applicant has a 41 or a 43 is a business decision, actually, as I would see that. That's not necessarily in our purview, because in the C-1, they would be allowed to have either one of those, technically. Wouldn't they?

Do you have anything else that you'd like to?

Well, I guess this highlights the idea that we need to look at our land use map because right now this is not spot zoning. As Bill Miley said, it's not. It's C1 zoning from the corner of Aliso North to those condos. So that's, I don't know, seven or eight parcels on the west side of Montgomery and probably an equal number on the east side of C1 zone. I'm looking at the map. Maybe we don't want C1 there in the future. Maybe we want that to be VMU as a transition zone from our downtown C1 area north to the VMU and the residential beyond that. But right now, It's C1, and the house to the south of

The general plan states that the mixed use is the desired direction of Ojai. So to then limit by creating a residential use totally negates that ability. So that's what's tricky for us because we just somehow reconcile that, which is clearly where the first MCUP sort of was born out of.

Right. And, and I think the type of business that they have is kind of, um, a retail it's evolving. It's, it's a newer way that people, you know, people don't eat the same way they did 20 years ago. They, you know, we're eating better. It's more casual. We want our families, their hotels change. The Ojai Valley Inn used to be basically adult only, and now they built a kid pool. They want kids and families because that's who's spending the money. People want their families to be there. So I can tell you this, I am supportive of the change to allow for the 41. to allow the kids, because it's a r

A consideration on parking would really be the issue there. I mean, the only thing that's clear is being a parent and consuming alcohol is good and watching everything. But the parking actually, to me, is what drives whether they're 35 or 45 or whatever. But again, even in the way that we wrote this up, there's a ton of ambiguity. And that's why I'm just arguing for whatever the cap is here, let's have the courage to set it high or low, whichever way we go there.

related can you guys help us I guess with this there was discussion of buffer earlier on from some of the community members is that can you shed any light on sort of any restrictions or things that might be really important what type of buffer are you talking about for between the use I guess I think they were maybe misunderstanding the relationship with uses weren't they talking about a buffer

on the north side of the buffer, the driveway and a cement wall between the condos and the business.

I have no more questions, I guess. Two questions. We've talked about verified complaints. Could you define what that is verified is versus none?

Could you tell me what life safety requirements are? The applicant has requested removal of the fixed occupancy limit or base occupancy on maximum established by life safety requirements. The request also includes a request to remove numerical limits on umbrellas and furniture configuration. But I didn't know what life safety meant.

Any more discussion? I have a few discussion points, but if there are any more questions or... Well, I just, two quick questions.

I'm thinking, you've mentioned you were thinking of a business that had alcohol permits open till 10 p.m. and so on. Is that business still in operation, and what's different between this business and that business? I'm sorry. I'm trying to be polite and not name a business that I can think of that backs right up to.

No, I was just thinking there's a business on Ohio Avenue that backs straight up to Holmes and is open until 10 and has lights and live music and so on. Okay, I didn't know what time they were open to actually. Is there a difference between this business and that business?

Have you guys all met as neighbors and talked? It was a little surprising to me that one of the comments was, have you guys sat down? Because I do think an operating principle for you is that you actually have to be a better neighbor than the code requires, actually. Just in the interest, you're on the seams. To Katrina's comment, you're right on the seam where daily life meets commerce.

discussions on the food system of Ojai so I think that it would be a really good idea if you did have a meeting with all of the concerned neighbors and discuss those complaints it seems to me that you should be able to work out get a solution to meet everybody's needs Okay, the hours. You have requested that the hours be expanded. Staff, in your reply to that, you suggested that we maintain the current hours. You did not mention whether that included being closed on Monday and Tuesday. When you say maintain the hours, are you including that Monday and Tuesday closure?

The 35 people, it seems, was a number that a previous planning commission came to. I would certainly want to know what the fire department has to say about that. the the parking is related to that number as well and of course parking on montgomery is a problem now that the trailer is out you have a little more space to put people but i would like to know if giving you a few more people in your in your cap would impact the parking and the

I would certainly like to express my opinion once again that having a parking requirement relating to an outdoor venue at zero is insane. But here we are. We're going to work within the rules we have at the moment.

The amplified sound is one of my primary concerns. The way sound affects the neighbors is a really big deal.

But there's no amplification allowed in your MCUP.

Someone mentioned that you are currently checking the DB levels.

Take it outside when you have a party and take that reading from the northern border?

Okay. Next to the register doesn't cut it. It needs to be out.

Listening to the audience tonight, and I really do appreciate everyone coming here and explaining their point of view, and there were quite a few interesting novel points of view expressed tonight for me. The one that really hit home for me was you want your children to be able come to the restaurant to the to ohio roots i approve of that completely i think that people should be able to bring their children to an area where they're going to be sitting visiting with friends um so i am very supportive of your request to put a 40 uh 41 into the into our documents. Condition of approval.

There's a couple of quick questions for Rihanna. There was a lot of kind of going back to this question, I guess, of the actual interactions. There's a lot of conversation in the documents from the neighbors saying that you're very aware of some issues and that you're ignoring those issues. And I guess I'm curious, because it seems like there's a little bit of a question of trust that's happening. Um, and I'm just wondering, I think maybe to Brad's point as well, like, so do you feel like you're like you have, like, do you feel like, I mean, they can't really speak to it, but can you speak to

Relationships are better than rules. Is your microphone on? relationships are better than rules and cheaper to operate. And in that spirit, I do think sitting and trying to work things out, I understand it's been a multi-year conflict and probably the other side of that coin is that you are not responsible for everything that's happened from 2013. And So yeah, it's a tricky one. Vines are being pulled up. Wine consumption is changing. The Ohio Valley Inn used to be a recuperation center for soldiers. Businesses change. So I don't think it's possible to just say because you said something two y

Pardon me? I like that approach. Is your speaker on? I'm not sure if this is the best venue or not for that, but I think we can help you get to that.

Is there a site plan or something? Do you have a configuration of what your idealized outdoor patio would look like?

Can you talk about the special events that you've had? The neighbors talked about wondering if there was gonna be a big event that night. How many, you're allowed to have one a month. So what is that looking like for you? What is actually happening?

Think some of the neighbors or community members may see that as an event a Quick question for staff, so I have a big family At least 35 people in my family so if I wanted to have a family dinner and I called and say can you accommodate 35 people and The restaurant's not necessarily shut down to just my party, but I take up the whole area. Would the city consider that an event?

What does the word unusual mean in the term unusual events?

Yeah, I guess the big watch out is Ojai is built on unusual nurses. And that's a tricky one. I understand why the language is in there. I'm not saying that to be demeaning at all, but it's just a bit of a red... flag because people come here to do exceptional and unique things and so your words count so we need to be Careful around that if I'm in the car club and Jay Leno is holding dinner at a cafe in town That's not unusual. That might be something I want to go to also if there is a breathing event In town that I want to go learn something about somatic breathing and I'm into that. That's no

I'm not a Marilyn Manson fan Marilyn Manson probably has different standards of deviation than I might but anyways, it's a Just I think we need to be very precise about that. A lot of people come to Ohio, I would argue a core value of the town is the right to be unusual and different in a unique and innovative way. To me that's a core value of Ohio, so I would just mention that.

Okay, do we have any more questions for Rhianna?

Thank you. I would like the commissioners to discuss the hours of operation and see if there are any changes that you need to make from the staff recommendation.

Oh, okay. I was going to go just right to the hours of operation, but we'll get there.

So the applicant wants to remove fixed occupancy limits. So right now it's at 35. She also wants to remove numerical limits on umbrellas and furniture configuration. So I think in the staff report it was stated that the configuration is not necessarily locked into place. You know, and I would remove umbrellas because in the Ojai hot sun, unless if, you know, we put a limit on the size, like a nine foot market umbrella. I mean, if she added a few more market umbrellas, nine foot market umbrellas, I think that would be okay to shade her customers. So I don't want to lock in, she can only have fo

I think that is right 35. I mean if she had come in with a proposed floor plan with different configuration That's something for us to consider, but all we have is what the existing furniture.

Yeah, we either need some sort of occupant per square foot sort of information or based on the furniture or something to reference to be able to make an assumption. Because as Brad's saying, we can't just say loosely whatever life safety requirements are. We kind of have to see those because this is a condition.

yeah so it can't just be anything it'd be nice to give it a hard number maybe it could be more but I think it's hard for us to really assess that I agree with that yeah so so my recommendation on that one is either continue it to allow the applicant to some information about that but I I doubt that we would uncap it

I would like to see a number, whatever that might be. Because otherwise you could just have wall-to-wall people standing around drinking.

Well, you can't do that in any space. There's always some sort of regulation. There's got to be a cap. The code dictates. Yeah, of course.

OK, but 70, I mean, you were making up that number, I assume.

Related to the use and the square footage. But we need something to kind of base it on, I think.

So on that one, I think we need more information.

More information. The lights, though, I think that that's also a part of this.

Oh, yeah, the Tivoli lights with covers.

I guess they don't have covers right now. But they do, and this is just keeping it in the.

Yeah, I would keep the Tivoli lights because that's part of our outdoor dining ordinance. So I would definitely keep the Tivoli lights.

It also says it's indicated on the site plan. Oh, it's the approved site plan.

And you're not recommending anything on the lights?

OK. Yeah. I was just going to say, it has a detail with the. Great. Yeah.

So do we go on to number two? Sure. Okay. So they said remove reference to minors, replace with generic ABC requirements, remove reference to a specific ABC license type, 41 beer, wine, restaurant. So I'm actually okay with that request. I think that we, it's a C1 zone, It's a restaurant with outdoor dining. That would be a license 42. That's not our purview. That's ABC licensing. So we're, in my mind, we're approving the outdoor dining related to a restaurant, which is an approved use there. So I'm okay with their request on item two. Which is to just say that they have to comply with the ABC

But I think removing any reference to a specific ABC license allows that in the future.

Yeah, so it would allow it. It may be fine.

As long as she has an ABC-approved kitchen for a Type 41 operation, and we approve it for the patio, right okay and we approve it for the patio she is allowed to have children there yes it's it's kind of half in our purview and half out actually I mean I mean the community development director does have to write to ABC they ask the city and say is this approved so are there any distinctions we need to be aware of and regarding children inside the building versus on the patio no okay

So that's number two, right? Can we move on to three?

You want to remove any, just as long as they have an ABC license and not worry about whether it's 41 now and 47 in the future? That's what I'm saying. You all agree?

What Katrina is suggesting, yes. Shame on you. What Katrina is suggesting is removing, is just saying an ABC license without defining whether it's a 41 or a 47. Okay, understood. Yep. I personally like defining 41, and if and when the business decides it wants a 47, they can come back and ask.

Walk me through why we would not do that. Just let me understand that side, or what's the counter argument to the way we may be leaning?

I think it, well, alcohol is a whole lot stronger when you take it out of a bourbon bottle than it is out of a wine bottle. And I think that that's probably the whole thing.

More like a bar. I think specifics help us. Pardon? I think specifics help us. They eliminate ambiguity for people.

Yeah, I think what's hard, Brad, is like there's, it's, as we've kind of heard from the start, it's sort of like intrinsically ambiguous because we could also say, whatever, Ojai Pub, these other, that are commercial with residential right behind them, which can have liquor, that's based on the zoning and everything. Here, this mixed use, which has a residential use, seems to have a sensitivity to it, and I think that's why we're talking about it, I don't still necessarily know. You know, if I was just looking at this, I would say, well, yeah, I would say we should just say if you're going to

Yeah, I think what we're learning tonight is that there are these businesses on the seams where one zoning meets another, where you have people who are impacted. And so specificity, I think.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Lucas, though, like in a way this is less on the seams because the VMU is supposed to be a transition to another space as opposed to along East Ojai where it's actually a seam.

The applicant would like to remove the monthly limitation and staff is recommending maintaining it. Do you have?

I would go with staff recommendation and keep it at one.

I mean, that does seem, especially hearing that maybe the idea of events is more of a- Would you speak into the microphone? Sorry. Especially since hearing that potentially the idea of an event is maybe more of a misconception than a reality of what's happening. It seems like it allows them to do something unique and special here and there while operating. So that's probably a pretty fair one. It also relates to the neighbor's needs and wants.

Again, this is one where I think we really have to be conscious of the neighbor's needs. And it does open it up to the applicant to go to the director. and define what kind of event they're planning and to be advised.

I think there's a nice idea about some sort of visibility on events You know, that's gonna be a nice thing for the neighbors also to know, you know that something's happening So I think visibility accountability. I think all those pieces come into play Yeah, because in the end, I mean even the mixed-use, you know pretty clearly says it's to promote community interaction. So I think that it's aligned with the C1 and the surrounding uses. Just to wait for it to be done, I guess, respectfully as possible sounds smart.

I wonder if the operator would consider a little bit of a limitation there. And you could set the parameters. But for example, events are only Wednesday through Sunday.

I guess the only thing is if it's like for a local nonprofit that wants to do some little thing. We haven't gotten to the hours of operation yet. So at this point, it can only be those days anyways. I guess we have to go there first. Maybe that's the more important one.

Yeah, and maybe it's a middle ground between the operator accepting, hey, I'll only do events Wednesday through Sunday, because that's sort of PICO. And then if there were an exception, there would be a TUP applied for so that they are flagged. And then you're probably in a position to say to whoever wants to hold that special event, by the way, guys, you have to pay the fee for a permit. I need to know 45 to 60 days in advance, and you go through that. That TUP process and I do think the notifications to the neighbors and everything would be great there.

So So Lucas they can do that. Anyway, right they can do the temporary use permit.

I mean, there's a certain, having, you know, ran a lot of events in Ojai, there's a certain on-the-ground reality to the kind of people who come to events in the given time that they come. Typically, there are not big Monday night events. And if there is something that's community-oriented, or Monday or Tuesday, if it's community-oriented, you know, Wednesday Wednesday on is kind of when you do that and that relates to chasing labor to work these events and all sorts of you know different things there but

I'm sorry. I made a mistake once. I let this happen, and then the whole room wanted to also come up and talk all over again. So I'm going to say no, and I'm sorry.

Staff is recommending that we maintain the current condition of approval relating to hours, which is including the Monday and Tuesday being closed. It also includes having it open from four until nine. My opinion on that is the four, I think that they could be open before four because it sounds like a lot of people are coming for coffee and a donut, a little conversation or lunch. So I think we need to play with these numbers a little bit or days of opening. 7 a.m. is, I'm not a morning person, but 7 a.m. is, if I lived next door, I'd have a lot of problems with those delivery trucks at six in

Well, they're not supposed to be there at 6. I mean, our noise ordinance is very clear about that. So, I mean, I... That would be a code case that we'd be addressing. Yeah, so I would encourage neighbors to report that when it's happening because there is a clear ordinance that prohibits deliveries. I mean, Amazon comes... in the middle of the night now, so I mean, it's hard to tell Amazon not to come, but we have to deal with that somehow. I am for opening up the the availability of this business to open every day, seven to ten. I'm okay with that.

I am. But I do agree that the noise issue is a big one, you know, and is there a way um our ordinance our noise ordinance it just struck me it says outdoor dining section 5 1105 there's special noise sources in our noise ordinance that specifically mentions outdoor dining and what it says is outdoor dining is prohibited between the hours of 11 30 p.m and 6 a.m so i mean That, you know, that's what our noise, yeah, like why are we, so anyway. I understand the neighbors and their concern for the noise, the deliveries before 7 a.m. That's terrible. In a commercial zone, though, I find it really d

The tricky one is the noise ordinance is what it is. 7 AM, you can hit your blower in some parts of town. And then going under the principle of you have to be a better neighbor than the code requires, if you're backing trucks up at 7 a.m., You're not you know, you're not operating and in a way that's gonna be Good for you in the end. You're gonna have a business filled with conflict, you know, and so It's a it's a tricky one, you know We can't really do anything about the noise ordinance. But on the other hand you you have to Operate a business around it and you all have to live a life around

Yeah. I think 4 to 9 p.m. Wednesday through Friday is too restrictive. I agree. I think that's unreasonable for a commercial business.

But I don't like the idea of going to 7 to 10. I think there's a middle ground that could be found.

I guess something that Brad said was, you know, And, I mean, something that was said by it was, along with it, I guess, is Brad said businesses change, you know. So, you know, what are the positives and negatives about providing the seven to 10? You know, obviously it provides more flexibility for something that is also maybe like, sounds like a store for the neighborhood. You know, there's other things where waiting until four in the afternoon is like, why would you ever go there to do that thing? So in fact, these hours push it more into a, as the liquor license more towards a bar. So we wan

So, you know the hours are a big play on that, you know, I Don't know if there's some way of like I just noticed something in the code so if this is truly a Restaurant because it has a commercial kitchen now and the restaurant is now justifying the 41 The code says that restaurant, cafe, outdoor dining is a full CUP. Just FYI. Not a minor.

yeah it is same notification that we're doing and it is here yeah no I know but I mean we all should be aware of that what I was looking up was restaurant it's very reasonable that we're looking at this yes it is reasonable and I don't know if there's a technical you know we're not approving an M CUP we should be approving a full-on CUP

If we continue this and it comes back to us, is that an opportunity to correct that?

I am trying to put myself into the shoes of the neighbors, which is typically how I do approach these applications. And since the business typically closes at 8, I was told, I think that Maintaining the closing at 9 is fine. And I would not want to extend that to 10. But I would want to push the 4 PM down maybe to 10 AM. think we need hours I think we need as you said earlier to put caps on things so that the business knows exactly what is and is not acceptable yes so how do we you know because how do we come to those those hours I think you know I think to Katrina's points she's looking at th

No, no, for sure. I know, but no, and I think we want to take care of the neighbors too, absolutely. But so we just have to come up with a way of understanding what.

But I'm also open to the Monday, Tuesday opening. I mean, I don't know that that, I don't see a really good reason to have it closed down on those two days. So the business can expand in terms of the number of days. and some of the hours earlier in the morning, in my opinion. So.

Yeah, one way of thinking about it would be to work backwards. So again, just injecting a little bit of operating experience, nine o'clock, things are pretty quiet. So if you do have something going after 9 p.m., it's usually a special event, and then you get into the gray zone of who you're impacting and how you're impacting them a little bit. So if we kind of said, well, 9 p.m. feels like an okay stopping point now, and then rationally for the business to serve lunch, probably somebody has to be in there doing something at around 9.30 a.m., 9 a.m., I don't know.

But they're inside. Yeah, yeah. I mean, they're not serving on the patio. Right. So that's where the noise level is going to begin to affect the neighborhood.

Yeah, at 9 a.m., everything's going everywhere in town, generally speaking.

But they don't open until 10 quite often.

I mean, people working in the kitchen, 7 o'clock is fine. Just do not go out on the patio and make noise. This is a really unique property and a really unique problem. And all of these are hard questions. I hope that we're giving you enough to revise and revamp and perhaps have a conversation with Rihanna about what's important to her in terms of these decisions.

What if we did something like no alcohol before noon? So if it's a coffee shop, you want to go get your coffee in the morning and go sit out.

What difference is it going to make if somebody has a glass of wine versus a cup of coffee? Well, no, but I think Bill was worried about the alcoholic content.

Yeah, he was worried about noise. Noise. When someone's sitting having a coffee, it was quiet. Someone sitting having a glass of wine, he would argue it was loud.

Right. So I think that's what Katrina's saying. Yeah, I mean, alcohol on the patio, so you're not having Bloody Marys first thing in the morning. I can see this place just like Three Birds. I go by that every morning. There's people there. The Duchess, there's people there. I think it opens at 7. People have coffee and pastries and they're mellow. They go in the back and they're on their computer. They're sitting there having conversation. It's mellow in the morning. I would be very surprised if there was just chaotic noise in the morning.

So that's why I think, you know, let them have the morning. And then I'm just saying as a potential, you know, what are the noise generators and limit those hours till the afternoon.

Yeah, and every restaurant has what I would call the Lord of Flies effect, too, that when you get a bunch of kids and alcohol and people in a place, the operator steps in and issues a certain amount of control. Having witnessed some of the earlier bars getting going with families and alcohol and everything, it reels back in pretty quick. So I do think there's gonna be some organic solutions there. Have kind of a radical idea and I don't I don't know if it's in our purview. I like what we're doing here I think this is super valuable and I think using your words if I put myself in the shoes of t

Earlier you said they need caps. We need a business that knows the parameters. And yes, I think that business and the neighborhood should sit down and perhaps staff can mediate some of that and come back to us with a cap that everybody can live with, caps that everybody can live with.

Yeah, and there's always a question of who owns the problem. Ultimately the city does own the problem. It's our zoning map and even the little wrinkle of do we have an M here or not an M? We own the problem a little bit and so I don't wanna shove the solution off on the parties because it seems like there's been a lot of acrimony. But I do think we could help them get there. And I know, not speaking for Bruce, but both Bruce and I volunteered the time we met you We urged you, make this your last stop for a solution, not your first stop. Make this your last stop where you guys come in and you'v

Yes, I would really like to know what Rihanna's priorities are. I would like to know what the, not now. And the same from the neighbors. So if we can have that discussion, that will help staff revise this proposal and bring it back to us in a format that everybody agrees with.

OK. Talk to me about hours. Wait. I'm sorry. I don't want to interrupt you. But I do want to acknowledge something here. And I'm just going to use plain words because it's already a complicated issue. There are power dynamics here that I think the neighborhood is not aware of. You have a young woman running a business, and when people hit her with heat in the parking lot, that's not gonna get a solution for anybody. I don't know if that's true. I don't know if that's the real dynamic or not, but it is a little bit of a perception issue, and I do think you guys need to be aware of that. And tha

Okay. Rihanna, could you talk to us about, I mean, you've heard us all struggle with the hours, and can you tell us what is most important to you?

Okay, we have some issues around the later hours. Can you talk to us about that?

But you're willing to... Work with the neighbors. Work with your neighbors on that one. Correct. Well, I just think that your needs and the neighbors' needs are more important than the numbers that we assign up here. And so I would really like you all to have a conversation and bring those numbers to staff and let them work it into a new proposal for us.

Can we cut that out and act on that this evening? Or is it better to do the whole thing?

And can the city facilitate those and help? Yeah. We would like that. So the walk away for all parties is what's worse? That's a question I would be asking myself walking out the door. What's worse, for the planning commission to set these caps or for us collectively to set it? Because as a planning commission, we don't know. Well, we know, but we might not set a solution that fits you or you. And so what's worse? That's the walk away question here, I think.

Real quick, the trailer language, deleting the trailer language. Yeah, we're all okay with that? Absolutely. Okay, good. Pull that out, and then seven, no amplified music.

Well, that's what it is. Amplified music is live music.

So amplified, well, you can have a guitarist singing not amplified. And is that terrible? Is that really loud? Depends on what time of the day it is. I mean, I don't want to limit live music. I think I'm okay with no amplified music at all.

Yes to what it currently is, basically. It sounds like she's allowed one speaker. She can't amplify music, which is defined more as an instrument that's plugged into an amplifier and performed.

But I would not add the addition of no live music.

I'm okay with keeping it as staff recommended I'm just reading through here I mean I look at this like I look at elections within 60 days of the hearing there should be no it should be a gray period where no party can issue anything that influences the other party

I guess it's a question, you know, sometimes you have to have things cleared before you can, you know, bring things to a body. Maybe that's kind of what you're saying. It's like the slate should sort of be clean before you're having a discussion at this level. Is that kind of what you're thinking a bit, Brad?

Do you provide the complaints, the verified complaints to the business immediately?

That sounds like an issue that we can just all

learn about and figure out what we need to do to comply and there's always communication with the either with the tenant okay so what's the I mean I'm assuming I could be wrong the table is no longer in the location that it was maybe it is still there the table's been removed been removed clearly the car is not parked in the ADA spot any longer so what is the event is over the police were there and had to move So the violations, what does it mean for these three violations to exist? It sounds like they've been rectified or what's the?

Well, I guess, yeah, what's the reason of it coming back here then?

Okay, so the one where they had a, I guess it crosses over, where they had a trailer in the handicap spot, because that wasn't part of their CUP and they were violating the ADA standards or ADA code.

Yes, it's two different things. That trailer is two different things.

Right, but there's never been, to Jonathan's point, there's never been an approval for having any kind of trailer in the handicapped spot at all. No. Ever, no. We were talking about that special event, the special event where they pulled in something into the handicapped spot to facilitate their event, correct? Yes. And that was a violation. But there was item number five, Dealing with the trailer. Oh, that's a separate, right? Yes.

Cute trailer gone. So I guess I'm still not totally clear, but the point is that with these three things, you would then bring these forward to us and say, this has been happening, even though they've been rectified or whatever, but this has been happening, so we're going to reassess the CUP, right?

We have this in other businesses in town, right? Yes.

OK. OK. We've gotten through all of them. do you do we have to yes we do we have to make a motion and uh deal with the abc situation tonight if if you're all ready to do that right okay and then we would also need to continue this matter to a date certain that'd be part of the motion right or

I'm ready to, the chair is ready to entertain a motion.

Do you think you can be the most articulate on this one?

Okay. Oh, well, I guess, okay, we'll see. I mean, I think what we're saying is that We are proposing to continue, can I say that part first? To continue this application to a date unknown while approving, or while, oh, it's not approving, actually. While, I guess, updating the current COA number two, to allow the applicant to apply to remove the reference to a specific ABC license.

Is there a second? I second. Is there further discussion?

Can I just hear the motion one more time? Did anybody log that?

to remove language that requires a specific ABC license.

OK. And that's going to be satisfactory for her ABC request?

And the logic for not stating a period of time that we come back on this. Lucas is what again?

OK. You want to see. You want a deadline. You like deadlines.

Three months? Yeah. Three? Three months? Two. Two months?

OK. 90 days. Yes. The item to be continued in 90 days, within 90 days.

Yes, I second. Is that amenable to the second? Yes. OK. I think we're ready for a vote, Sherry.

Yes. Chesley? Yes. Murphy? Yes. Wow. Do we need to take a five-minute break before we go on to our next item?

And right now you need IT. I was going to say, I don't need it.

as a reminder we have to spend a few hours here um

Okay, we are resuming our meeting and moving on to item four, which is a design review permit for the Oh, it's a lot of things. I'm going to let staff tell us all the things that are in this request.

Can you tell how many people are online?

PL is typically non-tariff revenue generating? Is that correct?

Jeremy, we have samples of the roof tile fencing and the colors for the building. Are these the same as the hotel is using, or are they different?

important distinction okay thank you just uh jumping around on a couple of questions i have and again just checking my understanding the zoning piece is permanent and the cup is not necessarily permanent would that be a correct statement

But in the scenario where you roll forward to another owner at some future state, that that zoning adjustment would be permanent where the CUP might not necessarily be permanent.

Yeah, and Jeremy, I'm asking that question not necessarily, I'm using the hypothetical not necessarily for the purposes that I believe that will become true. Only for the purposes of just kind of keeping it square in my head, we're actually proving kind of two things a little bit. And so I'm just keeping that clear in my head and getting it on the record.

Will you remind us, does the spa use, if it was a standalone CUP for the spa, does the spa have enough parking on site without using the hotel's parking?

So right And so my point is last time at the last hearing I said you know, we I wanted those numbers so There should be some kind of CPS run with the land, right? so for giving a CUP for this property and would be good to know exactly what it what the parking looks like standing on its own and if it doesn't stand on its own it should have a shared parking agreement with the property across the street even though it's under the same ownership it's a different property it should have a shared parking agreement and that stays in perpetuity even if that property is sold. So if the spa property is

Thanks, Darryl. I understand that, but I still don't. I understand that, and right now that works, but that still doesn't.

Yeah, it's interesting because on the part of the application is local people are going to be able to use this. And I think we should specify that and put some barriers around that so that we know When those periods are because I think what's true a little bit is what you say is correct. It's essentially an amenity where where it's sort of a Percentage of users of the hotel will use the spa if you will. Okay Then there's kind of another operation which is well a lot of people in town have communicated if we're gonna change this PL To VMU we want to be sure we have some sort of usage. We talked

Okay, that meets exactly. I'm sorry I missed that. Yeah, it further clarifies. That's the exact guardrail.

Yeah, and we want to give you flexibility because the term spa is changing a lot, you know, and if you think about contrast therapy and all these things that are, you know,

Could we talk about the Historic Preservation Commission recommendation of moving this to the HPC for their comments? I believe that Ginger explained to us accurately that the HPC is concerned about what's on the exterior of the building and that the applicant is not planning to make any significant changes to that. If we hold up the hotel, to wait for that HPC comments to report, to come back to us, that may unnecessarily delay things. I don't think that the HPC is going to have a lot to say here.

Well, they may. One of the character-defining features is a central open courtyard landscaping hardscaping within the courtyard. That's a character-defining feature. The mid-century modern is known for certain paint colors. I'm sure this is fine, the white and whatnot, but I think, more importantly, they have expressed an interest in reviewing this. I think they have a right to do it. I think by ordinance, by the definition in that uh... code section that lucas read right you're talking about title four so it's four dash eight point oh five minutes of section uh... uh... yeah want the last sen

I feel strongly about this Which will all go to the city council for the final decision so it boils down to do we want to hear the historic report prior to making our recommendations I do because it might change the way the courtyard is dealt with and that's our bailiwick

Well, it's... It says in this historic report that the central open courtyard is a defining feature of the building, right?

OK, but this is no longer. I agree. They could be unpermitted. They could be from the wrong era. It could be anything. But the Historic Preservation Commission, if there's any changes, should have the right and they do have the right to review any proposals or changes

That's fine. It's a discretionary application. The Historic Preservation Commission has the right to review this and comment, and they may say... tear it out because we will approve this project but this you know they who knows they they should have the right to look at it and make sure that um the character defining features are um kept in place. So, you know, maybe, you know, I don't know what the issues are. That's why it should go to them to comment. Evan, can you help us clarify? Sure.

Correct. OK. Well, I think the Historic Preservation Commission should be able to review the report and see if they agree.

And if they don't agree, it's still just a recommendation, correct?

I guess I disagree with your interpretation of the code then, because my interpretation of the code, it says very clearly to me that the Historic Preservation Commission reviews and comments within 30 days submission for the public record of any and all historic resources reports prepared for any development project requiring a design review permit, conditional use permit, development agreement, or other zoning code. That's the second sentence in that paragraph, but it's a standalone.

Okay, we will open public comments and hear your online person.

Okay, back to us. Oh, two, I didn't hear that. Is there anyone else, Sherry?

Okay, brings it back to us. And it appears to me that we could make a decision on this tonight. and let the HPC comments go to the council or we can have the HPC, we don't have a meeting on the 19th but we could come back to a meeting and have the HPC comments come to us then and then make our recommendation to the city council. with the comments in hand to help us do you have opinions about which way to go with that

I think with the experience of the last one, for example, it seems like there's just some sort of procedural and kind of overarching things that are probably better for us to try to move forward. Within in in like a clear way, you know, and I think since there's a clear opportunity here and not a lot of time it can make a lot of sense to just You know do it in a process where we're all moving forward with the information that we want to have, you know I mean we could make a decision sure and pass it back, but I think there's an opportunity to to have all of the resources at hand, which theoret

I like the middle ground here a little bit that you were proposing. I like having the HPC have their eyeballs on it. I don't like limiting their scope and I can understand why that might be more efficient but I think they should get a clean look at it and then I think from there it could go to council and so we could each get a little bit of what we need there.

Okay. It sounds like we have a two and two situation.

I guess- Why would you like to make a, you'd prefer us make a decision tonight and pass it to HPC?

Well, it's what the applicant has asked for, and I consider that reasonable. But I also would like to make, sorry, phone calls coming in on my watch. The hotel isn't going to really be able to do anything until the city council reviews this. So I guess if we, give the HPC an opportunity to give comments to us and include that in our consideration on the 19th. It probably isn't going to be too deleterious to the applicant. What do you think, Brad? Do you have a reason why you think, could you help us?

I could just give you my perspective on my thinking. So I like the middle ground. I think there was enough traffic on letters on the topic whether people understood the details or not on the move from PL to VMU that I think the check step actually is owed on the historical side. not at the cost of causing you extra time or delays or anything like that because the council does always have the ability in the end, play it out that they get given some information that they feel needs a little bit of a deeper study, they can always kick it right back to us. but I would rather roll with the bet that

That would involve more time delay for the hotel to move forward. So maybe we... Maybe we should ask for HPC to give us a report and then make our complete and final recommendation with all information in hand.

Yeah, because for sure with the description you laid out, which is an option, that being a pretty quick process, given it's all happening in the next few weeks.

That's kind of what's nice. That's why I sort of like, okay, this is sort of, I guess maybe there's disagreements of exactly being the explicit procedure but it's like written up that this can be the way in which we move forward and ideally it's so that the project can move forward so there aren't questions down the line oh we don't know enough of this thing like we did on so many projects we ask these questions you know.

You said you think it's a beautiful project and you haven't mentioned any changes that you are Inclined to make unless HPC comes forward Well, the other thing is the parking the parking issue because they're taking away parking off this site Which in this proposal, I think it's great because it's part of the hotel and they're making a courtyard however it if it's standalone and That makes a difference. They're removing parking in an impacted area of our downtown. Anecdotally, driving down Ventura Street, it's packed. There's no parking left. And there's an empty business across the street, bas

How many parking places are we losing by putting in the garden?

independently of the hotel it has to come back to you for a change of the cup right but my question was how many parking places were removed in the plan to create the garden oh um in the back was it three i think there were four four Four parking places. I think it was four. Okay, so we went from 12 to eight.

So we went from 11 parking places to eight and the concern that I'm hearing is that what if in the future it becomes a separate spa? I think that that's for them to work out in the future.

Hang on a minute. Just to make sure I have my information correct, I'm seeing on item four 87 average daily trips versus 122 for the prior office use.

that's traffic, but it would also, the knock-on effect would be parking, you know?

Yeah. OK, well, I'm just pointing out that parking is being reduced on that site. So any future use doesn't have to be a spa. It could be offices or whatever. They're not going to have as many parking spaces. They're relying on the shared use of the hotel at the moment in their proposal. So it impacts the site, it does.

Yeah, because I think then it's just about this thing about whoever is, let's say, taking over this business and changing it to something else. It's their own, as the words come up, due diligence and to figure out.

Well, what's true, and probably a little bit crass, but it's late. What's true is the business could underperform because the very operator ran a business that underperformed, which you bought. So it is true that that condition could happen and there might be a way that you say at some state we're conveying this to somebody else and something else is going to happen. So it is true that that is within the realm of possibility. I mean, the big thing I'm struggling with is I'm just looking at the numbers and seeing that if the average daily trips are reduced, what do we believe will drive more ne

And you guys are owner-operator. There's not a management company or a third-party provider or something. So you guys are directly owner-operator here.

So you're asking maybe there are some things we can not revisit.

We're usually done by eight. It was the previous item, as you know.

Okay, so what are we going to do with this? We need a motion.

We do. Yeah, we do. I don't know if it's clear in my head.

Can you come up with one, Brad? I'll try to form a late night motion here. I would like to, and help me here a little bit. My motion would be to approve the staff recommendations as written with the exception of mandating that the HPC get a look at this to then deliver a report to city council. That would be my particular motion.

In shorthand, I'm agreeing with her that we're not gonna relitigate all of the old issues, that I'm accepting what's been drafted as the recommendation with the exception of getting the HPC going directly but but going directly to the City Council under the logic that if they see something that they feel is requires a Planning Commission viewpoint they would immediately say we're sending that to Planning Commission and I agree with you it runs a risk of actually delaying the schedule But given some of the commentary that there may be different things built in different periods that had differe

the chair will entertain another motion Trina do you want to make a motion that we that we

We approve the resolution to move forward to City Council with the exception of having the project and the historic resources report go to Historic Preservation Commission on August 13th and back to Planning Commission on August 19th so we can review HPC's comments and incorporate them into the project prior to sending the entire project to city council. If we approve

The staff's proposal in front of us and then the HPC comes up with something that we hadn't considered and want to incorporate. Your motion allows us to go back and do that? Yes. Is there a second?

Okay, so we will Take this up on the 19th We have a meeting

And we consider that separate from whatever the project that's requiring their removal is.

I believe I'm going to Mac next time, next time, so. You're in the rotation.

We'll get one next month, I mean next meeting. I take it Andy is, Whitman is not online anymore.

Mr. Whitman, do you have any, anything to tell us?

Mr. Whitman, do you have anything to tell us?

Do you have anything to tell us? Unmuted.

I have good stuff to say. Would the mayor like to make any comments while we wait to figure this out? Nope. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. OK. He dropped out.

In that case, I am going to adjourn the meeting at 11.16.