City Council - Special Meeting

Thanks everybody for being here. Welcome to the Tuesday, June 16th special meeting of the Ohio City Council. Roll call please, Mr. Montgomery. Mayor Gilman. Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Meng.

Here.

Council Member Lange.

Here.

Council Member Wood. Here. And Council Member Rule, participating remotely.

Here.

Is there something we need to ask her?

Yes, we have Council Member Rule participating remotely. We'll ask Council Member Rule if she's the only person in the room over the age of 18.

I am.

Yes, and since we have someone participating remotely, we'll take all council action via roll call tonight.

Got it. And would you lead us in the pledge, please? Yes. Thank you. Welcome, everybody.

Ready to begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

Thank you for that. Any changes to the agenda?

No. I'll move to approve it.

Second that. Mr. Montgomery, please. Roll call. Thanks. Council Member Rule.

Yes.

Mayor Gilman. Here. I mean, yes. Here, yes. Mayor Pro Tem, May. Yes. Council Member Whitman. Yes.

Council Member Lange.

Yes.

Motion passed. Thank you. And we'll move on to item number one, options for regulating placement of chairs on the 4th of July parade.

Yes, Mayor, this item is coming back to you after your meeting last week where council gave us direction to have an item where they could deliberate and discuss the potential creation or not of a chair policy for the annual 4th of July parade. Based upon the preliminary discussion that we heard, we came back with three options for consideration. One option would be to implement a policy wherein chairs may not be put out any earlier than one week before the parade. chairs only, not allowing items like armchairs and sofas and the like. And in putting out the chairs, ensuring that there is ADA access. Those that were put out either before the deadline or put out within the deadline, but blocking access would be taken to the city's public works We would be asking the public if they are putting out chairs, if this policy was adopted to label the chairs with name, address, and contact information, a phone number, an email, something like that. That's one option. Another option, as discussed by Councilmember Whitman, was establishing a potential encroachment permit a policy working with Caltrans so that people could be permitted to place items in the public right-of-way in advance of the annual 4th of July parade that is certainly an option we could pursue and lastly of course the council could take no action leaving in place the tradition we see now which seemingly starts earlier and earlier every year the only thing I would add and of course this is a council decision it's not my decision We would respectfully recommend that you, whatever you decide to do, and let's say you do create a policy, we would respectfully request that it starts next year. We don't think that starting this year with the short amount of time between now and the parade is probably a good idea. The ship has sailed, if you will. However, whatever the council decides to do, we will certainly provide a lot of public outreach and notice so that everyone is aware of what the decision was. With that, staff is here to take any questions that you have. Thank you very much.

Any questions? Leslie, if you have any questions, just raise your hand up there and I'll look out for you.

Will do. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay, let me take a couple of public comments. Kathy Smith and then Carol Avalon, please.

Hi, good evening.

I'm here to talk to you as a member of the Ohio Valley Women's Club. As you know, we have a property on Ohio Avenue. Chairs first started arriving June 4th in front of our building. We are all for the tradition of chairs in Ohio, but it would be our request that you pick a date so that everyone is on the same playing field. We have now had three sets of chairs placed there, We have an annual event that continues to exist at that location, so it's really hard for us to, we don't wanna put our chairs out on June 4th, but we would like, so I would prefer your suggested number one option. However, one week earlier, It doesn't really seem like enough to me, but that's up to you all. And it's a charming thing that community, as we were just out putting our chairs up, we had many visitors stop and say, what's going on? Why the chairs? What's happening that we should know about when we're here this week? So I do think it makes Ohio unique, and that's okay. But some kind of regulation in place that everyone can live by would be desired. Thank you very much.

So just for clarification, are you suggesting a week is too short? I do. Okay. I do.

Okay. Thank you. They wouldn't be out yet. A week is probably not long enough, but that's up to you. Okay. Ten days, compromise, two weeks, it's up to you. And if we're all working on the same timeline that makes it, like I said, an even playing field for all of us, my second request, if you choose not to do that, would be that you give businesses priority to the space in front of their sidewalk. I know we don't pay for the sidewalk, but the space in front of their business would be appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Carol Avalon, please. Thank you.

I agree with what she said and I just wanted to voice that that I think number one would be great and a week is fine and make sure they put a note on their chairs this time so that they're not blindsided next year. And that's it. And I also wanted to say, I think you guys should get a raise. I've been thinking about it. There's so much money coming in. I'm going to sit down, but there's so much money coming in, you know, from the DOT now, that I know how much work it is to sit up there. I know you have slides. I know what it takes for me to read these. And you have that huge manual. And I really feel that I don't know how you get a raise, but I do.

That's nice of you to say. No other public comments from me? Anybody online? Yes, but no raised hands, Mayor. Okay, we can move on. Okay, all right. I mean, I like what you proposed. Does anybody have any, I guess I feel equally about one and two weeks, one seems fine to me, but I'm open to thoughts.

and I think either way you do it you're gonna have some people who you know want to have a certain place shares and so I don't I don't have any desire for that to happen any sooner than it has to and it seems like I thought about the idea of making it the weekend before because I think that's when people would likely go place their chairs out on the weekend or maybe for those people who are only with us on the weekend I think a week is just simple And I'd lean that way, and I'm, you know, I have to say, so I've been at home in Ojai for 36 years, been here for over five. I can tell you that when I started seeing chairs two weeks before, at the time, it was kind of annoying to me.

it's it seems like a week a week would be plenty of time to get your chair out there where you wanted it but this is just my thought well this coming year it would be a week in advance so we could try it out and see if it what we think so it's on it happens to fall so we can try this out revisit it um oh that's right would it be on the monday yeah they'll councilman rule is their hands oh yes please leslie

Um, I initially supported a week and had no big, you know, no feelings really one or two week, but the people who really love it, they've weighed in at two weeks, you know? So, um, and, and I was thinking really what it is, is, is this great sense of, um, community for, for you know, for the people who love it and the people who do it. And, you know, I'd like to give that sense of community for two weeks as opposed to one week, just because it's better to have that great feeling for two weeks for the people who love it. The people who, you know, I think are kind of neutral or, you know, they don't support it, one week is kind of fine. Ultimately, if we do not allow any impediment to mobility or movement, then to me, it doesn't really matter if it's one week or two weeks in that, you know, for reasoning that way. And you would still have the people who really love the tradition really supporting two weeks. So That's why I ended up skewing towards two weeks, but it's not a make or break, and I certainly support option one. And as far as I think we can, I think it's fine to not do this this year. I understand just the logistics of what that would take. I do think the chairs can and should be identified. I think Bill Miley mentioned, I don't think name and phone number, but some sort of identifying number or something that someone could call Public Works and say, do you have chair number? And whether it's the last four digits of your phone number or whatever, do you have chair number 1925 through 27? Or did somebody snag them? um so you know but i do agree that putting a name and a phone number is probably you know not not something it's a little bit more info than we need so that's that's my sort of comments on this so i'm ready to support whatever the majority uh feels is uh the best way to go okay an email address would suffice An email address would suffice.

Yes. Well, I'm equally good with one or two weeks, so I don't really care that much. But I do think next year, and I like the communication part, and we can let everybody know if we go forward, this is what's going to happen for next year. I think that would help people prepare for it.

Mayor, may I? Yeah. So we're proposing a policy, not an ordinance. Yeah. OK. Are there other particulars the council might want, such as do you want to prohibit things like sofas, Barca loungers?

I think maybe benches should be on there because there are people that do bring a picnic bench. It probably takes up less room.

Let's focus on what we don't want.

So how about if we do, this is just a proposal on that, is that anything bigger than a folding chair or a camp chair can only be brought out the day of the parade. Because if somebody wants to have a bench or a sofa, but they're going to take it away if they want to set it out there, I don't really have a problem with that other than the idea that it's going to sit there forever.

I think it should just be cut and dry. This is what it is. It's not like, oh, is it okay here? I brought mine the night before. This is the rule. This is what it is. And then I would say no question. Yeah, just make it make you're gonna have that one person that's gonna come out there.

I think basically, so benches, but no. So like, like what's we see a couple of picnic benches out there now, which seems perfectly fine.

I think there's a safety aspect to that, too, and if you're bringing a big couch and it's too heavy to change, like if there's something that happens and someone needs to move something fast.

All right, so so far we have no sofas.

Okay. No sofas.

I think it was just limited to folding camping chairs.

May we say folding and or camping chairs preferred?

It's kind of like patio furniture, outdoor furniture. Well, here's the good news.

You know what? Actually, we don't have to go crazy on this. I'm just going to put together a draft because this is not going to be implemented until next year. So unfortunately, you're going to have to see this again. No problem. And then you can wordsmith it if that's okay. You get the idea.

We're not, just no sofas really.

All right.

And then I know.

Yeah, I mean, I'm fine with somebody bringing out their throne. Sure. Why not? There was one last year, I think. I know, but it's like, okay, that's funny.

It was a big throne. It was, yes. How about single chair or picnic benches? Single chair or picnic benches.

But they do have some of those camping chairs that are two.

That's true, okay.

I saw somebody.

How about just no sofas?

Somebody had a bench that had like an actual back on it. It was painted red, white, and blue.

That's every year. That one has to stay. That's okay.

But if you're saying picnic benches, that one doesn't. I think you're right. I wonder if the category seems to be outdoor furniture. things that were intended to be okay just say no sofas we could say no sofas or large just say not no no sofas or oversized armchairs that solves it

Okay. We will bring something back. Of course, it will also, I want to make the city attorney feel comfortable that we'll have ADA requirements expressly stated within the policy. But you will have to see it one more time. Okay. So what we will, and I'm going to pivot now so that we're talking about what we're going to, We're going to go back out there again and place flyers to replace the current flyer on the chairs. And we'll say something along the lines of, you know, the council has taken action and directed a policy that will take effect next year. And details of that may be found on the city website or something. I don't know. Something like that and put on the social media policy. I'll think of something along those lines.

And do you think something should be on the document? Like if there's... an item that doesn't fall into the category that's inappropriate, it will be removed?

Well, I was thinking this would go in the policy. So I didn't want to put too much in the notice yet because you guys, I'm sure whatever I write, there'll be some tweaks to it. But I was thinking just letting people know that a policy is forthcoming at a near future council meeting for the fall. And I mean, yeah, good.

Yeah, listen, you could say something really kind of, you know, sort of nice, but a little bit firm saying, you know, this, please, please follow this policy, you know, for the for the safety and, you know, mobile movement. Ability to freely move for our mobility challenge neighbors. You know, just make it like you're going to be a bad guy if you don't follow the policy.

And if I might ask, just while you're drafting it, just some consensus. Are we saying one or two weeks? Are we going to try one? Are we going to try two? Leslie is suggesting two. I'm open. Should we poll? Yeah, let's do a poll. I'm still favor one. Yeah, yeah. And you're favoring too, Leslie?

Yeah, just because everybody I've talked to who really love it have supported too.

Okay. Do you care?

I don't have a preference one way or another. I mean, personally, I sort of lean toward two, just because I like seeing them out there. And it puts me in the festive mood. But I haven't heard from any constituents. I haven't heard any public comments

specifying one week or two weeks so we just heard and there was somebody last week who also said you know they understand the need but but to one week seems a little short in two weeks that's true you know a little bit better makes for me it makes people happier for two weeks instead of one week okay so yeah

Yeah, I'm going to go with two.

Kim, what do you think? Two works for me.

Okay.

So two, please.

But maybe we'll decide when in 2028.

Yeah, you know, it could change. It can change.

Okay. Do you have what you need?

I think I do. Thank you all. Is a motion required? I would prefer a motion if you would be willing to do that.

So then something like the motion is to request staff to produce a policy to come back for review, including a two-week placement period and also restricted furniture. How's that?

With, yeah, making certain that ADA access is ensured with whatever comes back.

Yeah. Can I ask one more question? So did we want to include anything for the, about the businesses, about the businesses and the... That one's harder. It's harder because of the arcade, because of the...

I would not have that to mention myself this time, but...

But if you own a business, or if you run a business, put your chairs out there.

Well, I was hearing Kathy say, if we were not going to have the time, then that.

Okay, that's a good distinction.

It just makes it a little tricky, right? Like you're saying in the arcades.

All right, never mind. What? Okay.

Okay. All right, so I need a second.

I'll second.

Okay.

So just one quick thing. So there should be a time. You know what I mean? Oh, like 6 p.m. Like 6 p.m. the week before or whatever. Sure, okay. Just whatever works. I don't care the time. I think 12.01 is nice. It's clean.

12.01 a.m. or p.m.? 12.01 a.m. And if anybody wants to be hardcore about it, there you go.

All right. On the start of the day. Yes, exactly. Okay.

I'm sensing a new tradition.

I know. We're going to have people camping out. You're seeing people out there be the race. Like doing the mandala, don't they? Yeah.

The way it used to be. Okay. All right.

They have to have their chair down at the east end, and then at 12.01, you all run, grab the chair, put it where you want it.

Okay, so roll call, please. Council Member Whitman. Yes. Council Member Rule? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Meng? Yes. Council Member Lange? Yes. Mayor Gilman? Yes.

All right. Thanks, guys.

Okay.

So we're moving on to number two, introduce ordinance repealing Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Ojai Municipal Code pertaining to well construction.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to call Ms. Palmer forward. Yeah. And we'll deliver this along with our city attorney. Thank you, Ms. Palmer. Thanks.

Good evening all. So tonight I have an ordinance, the request to repeal an ordinance. It is ordinance number 973 of our code. It was adopted in 1990, March of 1990. It's a permitting process that we undergo here at the city. So it was adopted in 1990, a year before OB-GMA was formed. So OBGMA is the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency, and they're listed as one of the exclusive local agencies under California Water Code with statutory authority to manage groundwater within the basin. So they have a permitting process, we have a permitting process, and the County of Ventura has a permitting process. So we've had this before us, we actually discussed it briefly the last time we issued a permit. So our code requires us to accept the permit, set a public hearing, issue a permit, OB-GMA does as well, and on occasion the county does. So there's a lot of redundancy going on in Dupli-City here. So the recommendation is tonight to introduce this ordinance, to repeal this ordinance of ours, the city's, and let OB-GMA do their job. So tonight I would like to also invite Julia Aranda up to the podium. She is the GM for OB-GMA and she's got a couple of words she'd like to say and she would also be more than happy, as would I, to answer any questions. Hi, Julia.

Hi. Thanks for coming. Sure, of course. Full disclosure. So I am the general manager for the Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency. I'm also the engineering manager at Casitas Municipal Water District. So I wear a lot of shoes because I don't like hats. So just a little background. OBGMA was created by the state legislature. It is a state agency. The boundaries of the Ojai Groundwater Basin were created by Department of Water Resources. It is the sustainability agency for the Ojai Groundwater Basin, and it has a very specific charge and mission for the tasks and activities that it's responsible for in the Ojai Basin. The county issues well permits. The county has the authority to implement well standards for construction, like the nuts and bolts, if you will, for wells. That's what everybody in Ventura County has to follow. OBGMA had to prepare, you may have heard of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act that was passed in 2014. OBGMA is the groundwater sustainability agency that has to comply with that. We prepared our groundwater sustainability plan in 2022. Department of Water Resources approved it in 2023, and we follow that. Our mission is to make sure that the groundwater basin is sustainable for the future. And when someone is drilling a well or replacing a well or modifying a well, they think automatically i got to get a permit from the county then the county says got to talk to ob gma first and then they say they've got to talk to the city as well so they get kind of the run around and they have to go to multiple agencies right now so when they come to ob gma i i they fill out an application if it's a domestic well two acre feet or less than two acre feet or a public well A public well could be Casitas or it could be one of the mutual water companies. That's kind of an administrative effort where I can just approve it and present it to the OBGMA board as a consent item. If it's two acre feet or more, they have to go through a process where we get a deposit from them, hire our hydrogeologist consultant, to go through a whole process where they look at what kind of groundwater extraction they're proposing, how much they're gonna extract, where that well is located, how deep they're proposing to drill that well, and make sure it, weigh that against the criteria in our groundwater sustainability plan. And there's several criteria that they look at. Some of them are silly for our basin. Is it gonna cause seawater intrusion? That's usually a no. We can all agree that's going to be a no. Will it cause land subsidence? That's also a no. Water quality. Will it impact groundwater quality in the basin? Will it impact nearby wells? Will it impact interconnected surface water or cause chronic groundwater level lowering? If they can demonstrate that it won't be inconsistent with the groundwater sustainability plan and won't decrease the likelihood of achieving the sustainability goals, then we'll present it to the board and we'll issue a letter to them and they take that letter to the county and they get a well permit. That's what the process looks like. So there's really different, there's parallel paths with the county and with OBGMA. One is kind of the nuts and bolts of well construction, and one is looking at the sustainability of the basin itself and the groundwater levels. Adding another layer onto that is kind of what the city is doing. It's up to you guys to decide, I guess, with your ordinance on what the value of that is for your constituents. That's what's before you today. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about it.

And I would like to add one more thing to what Julia said. Ours is primarily an administrative function. We're not doing what OBGMA does, nor what the county does.

And last time we had, when we had the in, we asked, did OBGMA approve it? And the answer was yes. And we said, great.

Yes. So we're at the end of that.

Understood. Any questions?

I do. I'm just curious why this is coming to us now. Is there something underlying that this makes sense with or what's going on?

Yes. Actually, there is something that makes sense because they have just applied for a well permit. And so they applied for a well permit a month or so ago, some time ago. And I said, this is the time now. Let's see if we can get this repealed before we have to overlay that on the application that we have in front of us right now.

Beyond that, we've had a discussion at the staff level for over a year. We're not the water purveyor. We don't possess any water rights. And so it's just always seemed a little bit absurd to me that we were weighing in on something where we have, I understand why it was created given the history that was explained, but at this point it really is just an additional burden.

And the last time we did have a permit application and brought it to you all, we had this conversation about let's talk about repealing this or something different because why are we seeing it now?

I was only going to ask, I heard from the chair in a phone call that this isn't the first time that it's been requested by OB-GMA for the city to look at it, but not during this council.

And then how many wells do we do a year and the dollar amount that that generates for the city?

It doesn't generate anything for the city. There's zero generation for the city. We see.

We've done two since I've been here and two and a half years.

Yeah. And just so you know, the wells that we were applying for are monitoring wells. One of the issues we had with the state was they want to look at the interconnectedness between the shallow zone and the deeper zone. So we were going to put like a half dozen monitoring wells out, and they're in the city boundaries. So we have to go through, you know, jump through this administrative hoop to put these monitoring wells in.

Yep. Other questions? Yeah, go, please.

Is there a benefit for us in knowing how many people are drilling in the city? I mean, water is such a precious resource. And right now, we don't have the problem that we have had in the past. But would there be a benefit to having the city have one more layer of

Review, yes. You know, there's other ways to get that information. Julie and I speak regularly, so we are in close contact with Casitas and OB-GMA, so we could gather that information in a different way, for sure, and present a report on an annual basis or something, how many of these have been issued.

And the OB-GMA board members... I have a representative from the city on them. Yeah, Mr. Whitman. And a member from Casitas, a member from the mutual water companies, an agricultural member, and one from the CFP. It used to be the CFP.

I was going to say, too, if we were concerned about over pumping, the basin extends way beyond the city limit. So we would only have limited control. But we would all be voicing our concerns, it seems to me, if we were worried. But I haven't seen them be overly ambitious.

And that is literally OB-GMA's job. Yeah, yeah. That is the mission. Of course. Yeah.

Other questions? Thank you for being here.

Of course. Thank you.

Did you write a comment card? If you can give it to Weston, please. OK. Well, come up to the podium, please. Yeah, if we're ready for public comment. I think he might have been talking about chairs. Oh, wait. Are you talking about the drilling? No, wait, sorry. I wanted to clarify. So we're talking about the wells and the ordinance right now, not something else?

Whether you really do want to repeal that or not, it's kind of significant. Okay. We did come through, I remember 1978 was the relief from a drought. Lake Acetas went down. 60 feet. And we were concerned about how long it was going to last, and it filled back up again. This last time, it went down to 30%. It looked like it was going to take four El Ninos to fill it in a row. They changed the law, and they can detour the water from the river over to it now. So the steelhead are at risk, but they'll build the lake up. Should another 14-year or, God forbid, a 25-year drought like has occurred historically occur again, you're going to have all kinds of well permits requested. You're going to be waiting on them. You might want to think about do you want to retain control for at least the city part of it. The city might expand by that time. Who knows? But maybe is there a way to deactivate an ordinance and bring it back to the table and start enforcing it? Or is it better to go ahead and repeal it? Just an idea for you guys to think about.

Thank you. Anybody online? No, Mayor, no raised hand. Okay. Any more discussion?

Yeah, so my thought on this, as opposed to just removing the ordinance, we just suspend it. I've listened to, I've been one of the hearing officers on all these permits, and OBGMA is doing its job. but retaining the ability to say no to a well, if at some point, far off in the future, We would be very worried, and our policies might be at odds with OB-GMA. So my suggestion would be that we suspend our permit process with the idea that we can reactivate it at some point in the future. I don't expect that to happen, but I can foresee that maybe 50 years from now, things are really different. And you never know what the state might decide to do in terms of how they're managing water, groundwater, whatever else. I'm 100% satisfied that our interests in the groundwater basin are important. Completely protected right now and that OB GMA is doing all of that, but I just wouldn't want to give up the right to jump in at some point the future if we were You know, I think Even like four years ago. We might have started thinking about You know imposing moratoriums on drilling and But just on that point, I will say that we did receive the analysis, which is that if it's only two acre feet or less that's going to be extracted, you would really have to have a lot of wells for it to impact sustainability. But things can change. So that would be my suggestion as we

I would probably want to look into the the appropriate method by which we would suspend it but I'd be happy to look into that and bring that back the other option of course and is that you can always repeat if you repeal an ordinance you can always readopt it in the future so but of course You know, you need to have that organizational memory of the fact that we had this ordinance and what it said. So that can be trickier with the passage of time. In either case, potentially. But we would be happy to look into options for a suspension or, you know, some sort of suspension with a sunset that would come back at some point.

I'm interested in that. Ms. Will, you had your hand up.

Yeah, so I guess I was a little confused because I know that OBGMA has the statutory authority over groundwater management in the Ojai Basin, but Ojai's ordinance can override their statutory authority in the City of Ojai. Is that correct?

so they could say yes and we can say no and then it's no is that correct it's it's not so much that they that the city's ordinance would override but it's simply that you have two layers and so in order for someone to actually move forward with drilling a well within the city they would need the approval of both agencies so so some you know in the same way that the city has police powers over Other issues that affect the public health safety and welfare the city could impose or can continue to have its its existing ordinance It's just a question of a policy question for the council as to whether you you want to keep both layers of review

Okay.

But I think the question that I heard was, what if one says no and one says yes? What happens? Yes.

I mean, that's the thing. So the city of Ojai is maintaining the right to veto if there is a different... Yes. Yes. Okay. That's really the question.

We wouldn't have the right to... grant a permit if OB-GMA had denied it.

Yeah, no, I get that.

But if OB-GMA permitted it, we would have the right to say, no, because of our safety or water supply concerns, we're not going to grant it.

Okay, and I'm fine with that. I do... I know that most water is not coming through wells, but here's my concern, and I don't know. I know that if someone wanted to argue against a development, And that development included a well, regardless of whether or not any of those criteria that Julie mentioned, there would be a huge battle to say no in order to stop a development. And I can for sure see that happening. What I can't and don't really understand is if any new development would ever use a well. in other words what i'm not willing to do is further weaponize water in this way um so that that's my concern and i i haven't really um i i'm pondering the question as they say lindy you had something to say yeah i was going to say i think if if that was the direction we were going to go i i think rather than even even

suspend our ordinance we might want to consider making it more robust because at this moment in time it's just administrative for us so we're not basing it on any criteria we're making sure that they've gone through ob gma and the county of ventura so we would have to probably do some of the analysis that ob gma does in order to I guess I know if I might.

It seems to me the difficulty is, let's say we saw the lake getting low and we read in the Ohio Valley News, the basin is getting low. Our response to a well denial would be completely emotional. In other words, we're not hiring hydrologists. We're not looking at the basin and we only have we're only sitting on one part of the basin. So if OBGMA approved it, we would only deny it, again, emotionally, not from any side. So unless we change, like you said, change actually what we're about to do.

Well, I disagree with that because the city could have a different approach to its willingness to accept risk of losing sustainability from the other agency. So it may not be that the data is any different, it's just to what degree you're gonna, basically, it's about local control.

I hear what you're saying, except for that the locality extends way beyond the city. So if the OB-GMA suddenly was taken over by people who didn't care, the basin would be soaked up away from the little bit that we can control. Do you see my point?

I see your point, but boy, that would just make us not regulate anything, huh? Well, it's hard to imagine. Because we can't regulate everything, but we can actually regulate what we have control over.

It's small straws in a big pool, though. So in other words, if we didn't trust the agency, we would be in terrible shape in general.

But to council member Whitman's point, we don't know what five years, 10 years down the road is 50 years is going to look like. And at least having some measure of protection prevents us for if there is a bigger water war or if there are major droughts or if there's a Data center that's being proposed in Ventura I think it or you know that would affect our our watershed So I think I think having having something I think having a policy in place that that even if it is suspended like the idea of suspending it while we do trust ob-gma and we do have a good relationship with them but I think being able to have the future council to be able to bring something back if they want more more, what's a different word for control? Because it's not really control, it's like just guidance. I want to protect it. If they want to have more protective power, then I think that would be good.

I do have a question. So right now we understand the criteria that uses at least briefly as Julie pointed out. Does the city itself use that same criteria when determining whether or not to grant the well or are we simply In other words, how do we make a decision? What criterion do we look at if we are to make a decision? Is it in parallel with theirs?

So we don't have any scientific data for the reasoning behind approving it. It's administrative on our end, and we base it on what OBGMA has done and the county of Ventura. We're the last ones that folks come to. So we have a public hearing and we have you guys approve and grant a permit.

Right. So if we were to decide to veer from following the recommendation of the OB-GMA, then we would ostensibly need to have reasons to do that, which would require us to have some sort of Gage, right? I mean, we would then need to have our own criteria if we were to decide to go, you know, override or over veto the recommendation of. OB-GMA, correct? I mean, we can't just... I mean, I think that's sort of what...

I look at it quite a bit differently. The criteria... Actually, I think this is the criteria that OB-GMA uses, which is that the right to use groundwater is tied to the Constitution. The state owns the groundwater and allows us to use it. But it only allows us to use it if the use is beneficial and not harmful. So in theory, any time you're granting a permit, you're saying, OK, this use is going to be beneficial, not harmful.

And if I may add, the closest we get to a standard in your ordinance for consideration as part of the approval process is that effectively the council would be looking to, in considering a permit application, whether the proposed use of groundwater will endanger the groundwater basin or whether the groundwaters will be protected.

I understand.

So that's effectively what you're looking at.

So if I might gauge the room here. So suspending it sounds like what the council is interested in doing. That would relieve you of the administrative task, and we can revisit it if we ever need to.

And I'm fine with that. I just wanted to bring up some sort of concerns around... sort of taking more control is that I think more control means more responsibility. And, you know, you always open yourself up to appeals and, you know, someone says, well, I don't necessarily prove to me that this is harmful to the groundwater basin.

I understand.

Right. Because you've denied their you've denied their their permit. And so then you actually have to prove that. So that was my concern, really, in taking this on is that we now have the responsibility of being able to back up legally our position.

Your point is clear.

I'm certainly fine with suspending it. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Okay.

Well, I move that we suspend the ordinance.

Well, what we will do is we will bring back that we will need to probably take action by ordinance to do that. That's not how this ordinance was drafted. So we will bring something back for the July 14th meeting that will do that.

Is that good? Okay. Sounds good?

Great.

All right. Do you need a motion to do that? I think that's what we discussed.

I think that since we're not actually taking action again, we don't, but we will bring something back for the July 14th meeting.

I was just mimicking what I thought Ben was asking for too on the chairs, but sounds good. Okay, moving on to number three, consider change in council protocols.

Yes, Mayor, thank you. I'm going to hand this over to Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery, please.

Thank you, City Manager Harvey, Honorable Mayor and Council, and Council Member Rule Remote. I'm happy to bring up this topic and that the wisdom of the council wants to talk about this because it always seems to have questions around the schedule of commission liaisons and when to report and all that. So we heard through City Manager Harvey that the council was interested in a longer rotation of annual for our commissions. What I prepared for you is a resolution item that simply updates our council protocols. This lives in our council protocols as something that you guys have adopted as a council. And it is just an administrative function of the city manager's office that I took over upon entering the city manager's office. that I've just been updating, and so I'm happy there's some light on there. What I'm proposing that's a little different is this used to include the Building Appeals Board as kind of the standby member as the fifth, but now we have a fifth city commission being the public safety commission so with the mayor and four council members and our five city commissions we're asking you to review first of all the annual rotation and then how you would like to appoint i've presented two options you can simply do it via minute order here like we do the regional board appointments, or if you'd like us to do another lottery that was chosen for the Public Safety Commission, Mr. Quillacy and I can meet and randomize it. So that's what we're seeking here tonight. Maybe if City Manager Harvey has any other intel there.

Yeah, the only other thing I would say is we're not, you know, the year rotation is a suggestion. Certainly it could be a different time period. It could be six months. It could be I wouldn't want to do it more than two years, because the mayor is not longer than two years in office. But it's been my experience that I can't recall who is on which commission, often with the quarter rotation. And also, some of you sometimes get confused on that, too. So I know that we're right. It's a bit fast. So anyway, but it's just a suggestion. If you want to keep what you have, that's fine, too.

I have one more note. We provided an exhibit or an attachment that kind of caused some more confusion. Where we're at currently is we've stopped rotating. So the first quarter of 2026 is where we did it. And this item was on our future agenda items list for a little bit, so that's why it took a little longer. So we haven't done our second quarter rotation because we knew that this was coming. So I've just provided a sample of where we're at with first quarter and go from there.

I guess the only, and it sounds like you're totally cool either way. Hypothetically, if we did a six-month rotation, then you could sample more, the mayor could sample more, I guess, more commissions. But the mayor, anybody could go to any commission meeting they want, besides the one they're assigned to, so they could always sample those things, which happens sometimes. Does anybody have a strong feeling?

I think six months would be better. A year to me seems too long, like you said, and you wouldn't be on a commission. I'm willing to try six months.

One other little point is just planning meets twice a month and the rest typically meet once. So just to say it's a little bit more of a burden. But not bad, just a detail. Do we have comments on this one?

I don't have any public comments. None received and no raised hands, Mayor.

Thank you for asking. I like the six-month idea. It means that if you serve four years, you end up with a liaison each during that four-year period. It means that the mayor would be on at least four of them. And I also think that we should do a little bit more to encourage communication between the chair of the commission or the commission in general and the liaison in terms of when there's questions about how to. do certain things protocol wise you mean what protocol wise or yeah yeah yeah i mean i've i had a couple of those types of questions uh and my most recent uh is an assignment with parks and rec so having somebody that they kind of know they can go talk to is i think a positive And then I think those questions should go from us to the city manager and then decide how to resolve.

Do you have an objection to six months?

I like the idea of six months. I think a year is too long, especially if we are looking at someone who's on planning and going to that additional meeting. Also, it keeps us from having any one council member have an agenda. Not a problem in this council, but let's say there's a future council member who who has an agenda and six months doesn't give them an opportunity to, you know, to enforce or push an agenda within a commission. So I like the idea of six months.

And then Ms. Rule, do you have an objection to six months?

no i i prefer six months as well um and i think uh certainly a quarter has been has been too short and i sort of agree with the idea of and and this doesn't have to do with the amount of time each rotation is but um establishing a closer relationship with the chair or you know the assistant chair each liaison you know and i think uh councilman uh mayor proton menger and i met with the HPC chair and one member of the commission, I think, weekly for almost six months. And, you know, my knowledge just exponentially, as well as, you know, forging relationships. So I think that both of those are good things. And I know that I think Mayor Pro Tem Meng is still meeting with HPC. And I think that The mayor, I think you've taken over meeting with them. So that's a secondary benefit. And six months allows you to get closer to that liaison commission relationship building. So, yeah, I think six months is great.

And then I guess the second part is you're asking how to do the next assignment. So just you could keep the rotation cycle based on what we're leaving. In other words, if you were to randomize it right now, for example, you wouldn't want to have somebody stay where they already are for six months. So you could just continue on your cycle. That's a suggestion.

We do have what is currently quarter one. And we have to include public safety, which would be our standby. So that's all there.

Yeah.

I would really like to get the council's input here. Okay.

I can... Is there a particular commission anyone wants to fight over?

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, well, you're going to, in six months, it's going to change. I don't know what the big fight's going to be. Yeah, I guess I would... I hear what you're asking for direction, and I'm... I guess somebody could, if they really want to serve on something, they should. Right.

And I think a random rotation is a smart thing. Okay.

It's going to rotate again.

Yeah. I mean, I, I think, you know, you just, you just cycle through. So, um, I think that that also speaks to council member Lang's. potential problem of somebody having an agenda. So I know this is coming up on the planning commission. So I want to be on the planning commission because not that you have any real power there as a liaison, but I think the randomness is good.

Yeah, I agree.

I think it's good. Kind of like, where am I going now? No, that sounds good. Oh, cool.

And you could always go to anyone you want to go to. We all know that.

Exactly. And you can always reach out to anybody that you want to reach out to, and they can always reach out to you.

So I would recommend we use the same type of language we did with the Public Safety Commission, and Mr. Quillacy and I will do a lottery and produce you. Hold on.

There's some more discussion, I think.

I wasn't saying lottery.

So the... The problem with the lottery is that if you've just been in liaison and then the lottery says, well, you're... You're going to go right back to the liaison you just had.

Can't we do it how we did the boards?

Why can't the cycle just go forward again?

Yeah, just move it the way we've been moving it.

That's what I would suggest.

Only instead of the board, the public safety replaces the appeals board.

That's just fine. Yeah, and that would work, right?

So this paper here that you attached, that's where the current rotation is? Mm-hmm.

Yes.

So then what is the rotation? That's maybe something that I don't know, how the rotation works.

It's very simple. I took over a document that was in the city manager's office of rotation, and I just updated the list.

No, I think, aren't you asking what comes next?

I'm saying, so like, when you go, like, let's start with planning is Andy. So then where does he go?

Just move to the right?

Does he go to Parks and Rec? Does he go to Arts? Does it go that way?

Do you know what the next rotation would be off the top of your head?

No, just go take it from a table.

But there is a formula that you've been using that you can continue to use, whether it's right, left, up, down.

Yes, just use the same formula.

You have a process on deciding where, who gets assigned to what commission. So I think easiest thing is just to say that we'll continue that. And as I recall, it goes, I mean, I'm kind of backwards here, but it moves to the right.

Yeah, the right. Or whatever. I'm not sure.

I don't have a definite answer for that, but anyone can see the document. It goes back years.

We'd be happy to do two things. If council wanted to proceed in this manner, not only would we share the document, of course it's a public document, but also we would tell you what the next rotation is. But we wouldn't do that until tomorrow morning, if that's okay.

Well, and you can just tell us, because you'll have to tell us where to show up for.

That's right.

Yeah, following council action, I would update that. So I'm hearing two things. We're going to proceed with the rotation.

Starting July 1, right? Okay, starting July 1.

Proceed with rotation form and six-month term.

Correct, and I would just like to ask the city attorney, would that minor modification be okay for adoption tonight?

It would be. So the motion would be to approve the resolution included in the packet, to adopt revisions to the City of Ojai Council protocols to revise the time period for City Council Commission assignments with the minor modification from annual assignments to six-month assignments.

Cool. Motion? That's the motion. What she just said. I'm saying it.

I'll second it.

Okay.

I just have one thought. Sure. Because I appreciate getting the packets. I'm sure we all do for liaison. The one thing that's missing, and I don't think it would be that big of a deal, to include the public comments in our packet. I know that goes to each commissioner, but like I have to go, not that it's a big deal, but it is kind of a hassle to go onto the website to find the public comments. It's not just...

a part of well packet is that an issue the time is the issue okay we don't have the public comments ready with each Commissioner do they get like we do

When we get forwarded our public comments, commissions don't?

They do, by the staff liaison. So that's a great question. And I'll work with each staff liaison to make sure. To include the liaison. Right, of course. If not the full council. No, no, no. Just one. Just the liaison. Yeah, makes sense. Good. I'll work with the staff liaisons there.

Thank you.

Motion and a second? Yeah. Roll call. Mayor Pro Tem May. Yes. Council Member Rule.

Yes.

Council Member Whitman. Yes. Mayor Gilman. Yes. Council Member Lange.

Yes.

All right.

That's all we've got. We're adjourned.

Thank you, everybody. Thanks, Leslie. Ciao.