Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 06:00, and I am calling to order the meeting of the Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 18. Sherry, could you take the role, please? Chair Murphy? Here. Vice Chair Chesley?

Here. Commissioner Reich Schmidt? Here. Commissioner Stewart? Here.

And one vacancy. Thank you. Katrina, would you lead us in the pledge? Certainly. We have an agenda. Lucas, are there any changes?

I do have one requested change that the commission would need to vote on which is the removal of item number six. It is the Brown Act training and then basically removing the agenda item and rescheduling it for the next available meeting.

Any discussion on that? Hearing none, Sherry, would you take I guess we need a motion to approve.

I move that we eliminate it and postpone it to another time.

Second. Thank

you. Sherry, would you take the role? Steward? Aye. Reich Schmidt? Aye. Chesley?

Yes.

Murphy? Yes. Our commission was short, two members, until this past week. I am happy to welcome one new member to the commission this evening and introduce to you Brad Stewart. And I've asked him to tell us a little bit about himself.

Thank you. Happy to be on board and anxious to work with all you guys. So thank you. It's an honor to serve the city. I appreciate it. I'm Brad. I have five kids. Four of them are older and live in Portland, Oregon. They're all off doing their thing post college. And then I have a 15 year old here in Ojai that goes to Oak Grove. And we are engaged in a couple of businesses here in town. Prior to living here, we've been here about thirteen years, twelve years. Prior to living here, my wife and I lived between Geneva, Switzerland and Portland, Oregon, and we worked in the sporting goods business. Business. So happy to be part of the group.

Thank you, Brad. Welcome to the commission. At this time, we set aside a few minutes for public communications. This is the time for the public to address the commission on any items of business other than the scheduled agenda items. The items you raise at this time can be discussed by the commission, will generally be referred to staff, and or placed on a subsequent agenda.

We can take no action on items of that sort tonight. Do we have any blue cards for public communications? I see none. Sherri, is there anyone online? No. Okay. Well, we will move right along to this consent calendar then. The minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of 01/21/2026.

I one card

are there any changes to the minutes Hearing no changes I would accept a motion to approve the minutes.

I move we approve minutes of the regular meeting of January 21.

I second.

Thank you. Sherry roll call.

Steward? Aye. Reschmidt? Aye. Chesley?

Yes.

Murphy?

Yes. Disclosure of site visits and ex parte contacts at this time. We have several items on our agenda this evening. Should we disclose these as separate items or can we do the whole thing in one fell swoop? The whole thing in one fell swoop. Okay. Katrina, would you

I had no ex parte contacts but I did go to all three sites. I went to the item two site, item three site, item four site. And item five site. Wait. Zone change?

Yes. Yes. I'm going to tell him.

Okay. Jonathan.

No expert contact and I walked by the sites. Yeah.

I had no ex parte contacts, but I did visit items two, three, and four of the properties.

Thank you. And the same is true of me. I have no ex parte contacts and I have visited all of the sites. Moving on to the public hearing for item number two which is a an amendment to design review permit and I would ask at this time the staff to give their presentation on this item. Need Oh, wait a sec.

I need to recuse myself on this item. I'm the tenant at this item.

Item two. We have one commissioner who has an interest in that site and will therefore be recusing himself at this time. Thank

Thank you. You, Chair and Commissioners. This is a proposed amendment to a previously approved design review permit related to a transom element above an entrance to an existing building. The project is located at 102 North Signal, and you can see it here on this location map. And here we have the originally or previously existing prior to any, review and approval by the by the planning commission.

And the item tonight that's that we're gonna be talking about is towards the the left of your screen, not the furthest left, but the second the one to the right of that. And I'm gonna show you here. This is what you approved, previously, and I'm gonna go to the next screen, which is what's approved now, and then I'm gonna describe what's, what is happening here. So this is what you're reviewing this evening. And and what you are reviewing is outlined in red on the screen.

So again, it was a design review permit related to the transom element or what we're looking at tonight, the transom element above the entrance of 102 North Signal. The building is a contributor to the California Register of Historical Resources. California Register listed downtown Ojai Historic District. On January 8, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and considered this amendment and unanimously approved the amendment to their previously approved major work permit with WP 25008. Again, you previously approved the previous screen on 10/01/2025, and the previously approved area just for what's in this circle here included a replacement of an existing storefront with a wood frame system proposed to be flushed with the exterior wall with an open the door opening inward, and a new transom was approved to be installed above the storefront replacing an existing stucco panel.

Additionally, the stucco and rocks would be repaired and finished above the new transom. The amendment includes repairing the existing stucco above the new storefront system, and there is a transom there, but it's not where the transom is going to be. And we do have the applicant here to go into further description if necessary. Well, he should be online. The reason for the request was because discovered that during the process of removing the existing concrete to install rocks above the previously approved transom, that doing this work may be detrimental to the integrity of the structural framing because they were having to cut in to the existing concrete, four to six inches to install that rock.

And so instead of doing that, they want to continue the reservation and restoration efforts and seeking to restore and introduce some of the original materials and style. As you can see here, there would be stucco above the the transom as opposed to I'm going back to the previously approved one. As opposed to rocks above the transom, and the rocks were to match the existing rocks that are on that side of the building. I think it sounds a little bit more confusing than it is. Or so the current request also includes a new exterior wall sconce

building,

that's in the been

at we're the

style, and they meet the night new sky standards of the past. Municipal code. And So the applicant's intention, as I already said, is to restore the existing entry, and this amendment continues the intention and is specifically respecting the integrity of the current entrance by pulling back and not cutting into the existing support beam. Staff is recommending approval of the project as amended, and I do believe that we have Mr. Becker on line if you have further questions for him. Thank you.

Thank you, Laura. So basically, we are looking at a situation where you're replacing rock with stucco and adding lights.

Adding lights and not removing an existing beam to put rock, instead stuccoing it.

Stuccoing it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

And if you'd I can go back to what it looked like before anything was removed or remodeled or renovated, and then, again, what was approved, and then now what what the, amendment is, if you want me to go back and forth just to see.

Has the historical commission weighed in on this?

Yes. So they saw this amendment and unanimous unanimously approved this amendment. Okay. And also they saw it before and approved their work permit. So they approved an amendment to the work permit. Do

you have any questions, Katrina?

I just have one of staff. The all the work is completed, correct?

I haven't been there this week, but, but they have been working. And and

yes. Because I went out there and and it looks great. I just didn't know if there was anything else they were doing. So I'm assuming the work is completed.

Okay. Again, I haven't been out there to check.

Okay. So that's a question for the applicant. Yeah. Thanks. Brad?

Yeah. Did the historical committee review the lighting on

Yes, they did.

And what was the opinion? This is something I would equate with kind of a 1950s industrial style rather than Spanish revival. They What's the thinking on their part?

They approved the lighting. And as part of their work permit, their concern at the time, honestly, was the way it was installed, but it has been reinstalled to

be

more appropriately installed. It looked a little, wasn't very sound at first. Now I understand that it is. They were happy with the lighting.

Even even though it's kind of far outside what you would typically and historically see on that building?

What I can say is that they approved the lighting.

Mhmm.

As it is. Do we have any questions for the contractor online?

Well, my question is if the work is just completely done, appreciate when there's infield findings and you have to adjust your proposal. And I believe that's what happened here, and they just completed what they wanted to complete with it.

But I just wanna make sure. So, Sherry, do we have mister Becker online?

Yeah. I just allowed him to talk. Can you take your screen down?

Hi. This is Jason. Can you hear me okay? I'm the architect for the project.

Hi. Yes. We can hear you.

Jeff and I couldn't make it tonight, unfortunately. I think he's having some difficulties raising his hand. But, essentially, yes, we we didn't do any demolition prior to getting the permit. So once we got the previous version of this project approved, we started the work, and we discovered that that concrete section above the transom was was structural. You know, we couldn't remove that. We didn't wanna adhere, like, a veneer of rocks to it. It wouldn't look appropriate with the other rocks that are full depth and full size. So that's why we tried to make the adjustments. But instead of keeping the concrete section exposed, we wanna cover it with stucco to match some of the other areas of the building. So there's a a field condition that we had to address.

And then as far as the work being done, I have I have not been there recently, so I I can't speak speak to it, unfortunately. So I know that the building permits have been issued, and our previous planning approvals have been issued, but I I haven't been there within the last couple weeks.

So I guess my question is, is

what's Microphone.

What the project that's there right now, work that's been done, is it complete to your satisfaction? I mean, or is there more to do?

Again, I have not been there over the last couple of weeks. I'm not I'm not certain that that state exactly the exterior.

I think I'm unmuted now. Sherry, can you hear me? Yep. Great. Sorry, guys. This is Jeff Becker. Good evening. Sorry. I'm not in town today. I had to fly to the East Coast and just got in.

But Katrina, to your question, yes, it's completed at present. What happened was is we ran into this gray beam, which is massive. And we had our rock vendor come out with a with his gear, and he wanted to start chiseling into the gray beam, which was gonna be a real problem in my mind. And so we, in the field, decided that we needed to alert planning staff and not install the rock over the gray beam. We did install a few little inserts because the rock that existed previously was at sort of an odd angle, and we've tried to level it above the gray beam.

And then we plastered that that beam to cover it. So, yes, to the extent it's it's pretty well finished, there's still some touch up painting and things we would be doing, but wanted to get this in front of you guys. The modifications also in front of the HPC who is who is reviewing it as well.

Thank you, Jeff.

No problem.

If it sounds like we had a situation where we had to course correct in the middle of a project and it looks like that has been done very efficiently. If there are no further questions, I would entertain a motion at this time to approve the design review permit 25Dash005.

I'm sorry. Excuse me. We have to open this up for public.

That there is no public card. So is anyone here wanting to address this? Anyone online, Sherry? No. Okay we will close the public hearing and move on to a motion to accept.

Make a motion to adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the previously approved design review permit DRP twenty five zero five.

I'd like to second that motion but may I make an amendment to the motion that they at least offer to the community that they will take a look at the lighting. I think, you know, God is in the details as they say. And it's truly a different period of lighting. And I think just to keep the visual integrity, especially on the street, are other people who have done more wrought iron, more period type pieces. And so I would ask that we amend that motion that they at least look at it, not require them to change it, but pay the community a courtesy to try to be as period as they can.

I accept that.

Okay. Change. I second that motion then.

Okay. Sherry, could we have a roll call? Stewart?

Aye. Reschmidt?

Aye. Murphy? Aye. Okay.

Thank you.

Moving on to item three, which is a design review permit and minor conditional use permit to change from a single use business administrative offices for specialized school to include a retail and restaurant use as well as outdoor dining for a property located at 302 El Paseo Road. Would the staff like to address this item at this time?

Yes, thank you chair and commissioners. Forgive me if I repeat some of what you just said. This is a project. This is a request for design review permit and minor conditional use permit for a change of use from single use business administrative offices to include retail and restaurant uses as well as outdoor dining, and the project is located at 302 El Paseo Road. The project site is located in a commercial zone in an eclectic neighborhood with a mix of residential and commercial uses, as you'll see on your screen.

This corner site is bordered to the north by residential uses, the west by a residence and then a restaurant adjacent to that residence. Across Kenyatta Street to the East and across El Paseo to the South are additional commercial uses. The proposal is to reduce the floor area of the administrative offices by limiting the use to twelve seventy square feet, which is the 2nd Floor, you'll see here on your screen. The 1st Floor is then proposed to be remodeled to include a 1,300 square foot retail space and a fifteen ninety one square foot cafe with outdoor dining. This arrangement establishes a mixture of uses where alternative shared use parking standards may be applied pursuant to section ten two fourteen o six of the Ojai Municipal Code.

The existing parking lot includes 20 spaces. However, it currently doesn't meet the drive aisle with that's required with the development standards of the missile code and is therefore proposed to be modified, And the parking lot will ultimately accommodate 18 spaces where 16 are required. Pursuant to 10,202,003 of the code, a change of use as well as exterior alterations make this project subject to planning commission review and consideration of the design review permit. And pursuant to ten two twenty four zero three requires the director approval of a minor conditional use permit for the outdoor dining facilities on the private property. However, the director is referring this consideration to the planning commission because combining the permits really just is simplifies the process and makes it more efficient for staff, for the applicant, and for the community.

The modifications to the structure are relatively minor. I'm gonna show you that screen. This screen shows you the existing, and when I show you the proposed on the next screen, you're not gonna see a whole lot different in these in these at this distance and at this detail. But I will tell you that the no modifications are proposed on the north elevation, and the south elevation includes the removal of a wall adjacent to the east of the entry and replaced with a glass paned curtain wall that will extend down to grade, and that's going to allow light into the restaurant. The east elevation includes removal of the wall section towards the south end of the building for installation of two door assemblies.

The door assembly furthest to the south is for access to the restaurant's outdoor dining from inside the restaurant, and the door assembly adjacent to the north is for access to the proposed retail establishment. The main access to the restaurant and to the outdoor dining is on the south side of the building through an existing entrance. The west elevation includes two new entry doors, and these are for employees of one for the restaurant and one for the retail establishment. Section 10 to fourteen oh six is a section that is regarding reduction of the parking requirements, and this provides the opportunity for shared parking based on the assumption that patrons would be using single parking space for more than one destination and that a single parking space would be available potentially for short term parking to serve for a variety of different uses. In the proposed scenario, there administrative offices with daytime weekday hours and a full service restaurant, including evening hours, with the highest patronage most likely on the weekends, and the retail establishment requiring short term parking most, if not all days of the week and during the daytime business hours.

Projects developed under the shared use parking standards in the code are required to enter into agreement with the city, which is recorded with the office at the county offices at the county recorder's office. The agreement requires that the parking be operated on a nonexclusive basis,

while

and be available to the general public for shared use at all times. The applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan, And the plan includes maintaining the existing mature trees, shrubs, and there's some additional landscaping materials that are proposed adjacent to the ingress on Kenyatta as well as along the west property line. Replacement of concrete is proposed for the outdoor dining area on either and on either side of the main entrance facing that same corner. The proposed outdoor dining is all on proposed on private property. There are two two tops proposed on the east side of the building, straddling a new entry to and from this patio area.

And due to the angled lines of the structure, I wrote about it in the staff report, this seating is kind of tucked away for a semi private dining experience. And there are five additional two tops proposed at the main entrance on either side of the main entrance on the southwest side of the structure straddling that main entrance. So there are a total of 14 seats outside, and all of those seats are proposed on concrete. The applicant is here to answer any questions or clarify their proposal further than I have, and staff is recommending that the commission approve the project as proposed subject to the conditions of approval that are in included in your resolution,

draft resolution. Thank you, Maura. Would the applicant like to address the commission at this time or would you rather wait for questions?

Hello, my name is Kevin Cohan. I'm representing the property owner who is also my father, Vujan Cohan. We've been in the community for over thirty years now, excited to bring this project here to answer any questions. I want to thank Mora and staff for their help throughout this process and we're here available to answer any questions from the Board. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time we will open it up to the public for comments. I have a card first from Larry Steingold.

Good evening.

Nice, warm, and cozy in here. Larry Steingold, Citizen Ojai. I think it's great use. Mixed use, office, retail, restaurant, what could be better? Enough parking? My question, and it obviously goes to parking, is that if they have full occupancy during the week, if they're open during the day or at lunch or if they ever decide to do that. And the office is there and they're successful, which we all hope they are. I hope their food's great. Love to go to a new place. Will there be enough parking for customers, employees employees of of the the office, people who are going to retail?

It'll be in the neighborhood because they're gonna park on the streets on Canata and El Paseo. I mean, consider the ramifications and the predictable predictable consequences consequences of and more parking. People already parking on Canata and El Paseo is a little bit dangerous, a little bit coming through. But again, it's a good use. I hope you support it. I just think we should be aware and cognizant of that and possibly maybe another city parking lot somewhere, something. Because if they are busy over there, it is going to get worse further down because you want them to be successful. And I hope it gets passed.

Thank you, Larry. I have a card here from Kevin Cohen. Are you expecting or needing an additional no, Okay. Thank you. Okay at this time I'll close the public comment period and turn it over to the commission for questions and discussion about you, Jonathan? Would you like to start us off?

Sure. I guess I was just trying to so I mean, yeah, I think the project is mostly about barking. Right? Largely. I guess more like broadly stepping back, I was trying to understand sort of some of the math between the alternate alternative shared use parking standards and the, you know, the typical parking requirement standards.

Don't know. My do you guys can you guys like maybe just give a quick rundown on your thoughts on those? Because I I'm just the it's in it's just interesting math to me. It feels like I get that each one would have to be less, but it seems like significantly less even though when you add them together, it's like still less than one of those on their own for that location, for example.

Are you asking us to are you asking staff?

Yes. Okay.

So well, without the shared parking standards, yes, the parking requirement would be significantly more. I want to say approximately 25 parking spaces. However, because of the shared uses and the different hours of operation, the code provides an opportunity for there to be a lesser risk, less restrictive parking. That makes sense.

I

think the director would like to add something.

In addition to that, so think about this, you're in the downtown district, you park in the downtown area and you come and you walk over here. You don't actually park at this location. If we were looking at it from a a standalone use sitting on an island, then absolutely, I don't know how you get through a shared parking agreement that goes to the county gets recorded significantly reducing the number of parking spaces and then also opening up the opportunity for this to be a public parking space as well. Right. So what it's doing is by the significant reduction, it's recognizing that there's other uses that are within walking distance, certainly across the street and certainly to the east and to the west, to the north as well.

So really all directions within this area have an opportunity for it to be walkable, right? So you could be parking within a walking distance or you could park here and not necessarily

use that space to go into this restaurant but actually go somewhere else. Or you go to the restaurant and then go somewhere else. So it's providing a lot of flexibility from that standpoint but with that flexibility comes a pretty harsh

distance restriction in terms of of how that use can be afforded into the future. So I think I just wanted to give some context from a planning standpoint, just from a use standpoint from that context.

Also wanted to point out in the traffic study that was prepared for the project, they do a parking analysis and it says that the ordinance parking requirements is 16. Nine for the restaurant, four for retail, three for office for a total required number of 16 and they're providing 18. So they are beyond what is required. Yep. So I just wanted to point that out. Also anecdotally I live on the West Side and I walk to the restaurant across the street so I think this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. And I would walk. I would not drive.

Right. Yeah.

Couple of questions for the owner. The first one is I live very near this location too. And on the Ojai Ave walkway there where we have the light flashing and everything, you're good. Crossing over to this cafe, you take your life into your hands because people are trying to either turn in too fast, coming off of the hill, glancing at the liquor store as they turn left. Have you guys kind of thought about plants, visibility, traffic, making sure that however you're I can look at your plants here, but it's a little tricky to see it in real time.

Have you thought about keeping those sides visible there because there is kind of a three point connector there with people coming off the hill pretty fast usually?

Thank you for that comment. Definitely, we're aware of that. There's actually been discussion in the community bulb outs for that area and future improvements to the roadway. So keeping that line of sight available for pedestrians and traffic. As Maura has stated, a lot of the dining is on the private property side not in the public right away.

So it is confined to that area. So we're maintaining that line of sight and visibility. We hope the city in the future will do some street improvements there with the ball valves kind of doing some traffic calming devices there to help with that pedestrian oriented walking and feeling. But we felt this kind of goes with the intent of the city and the general plan of trying to create a pedestrian walkable community in this area with activating the intersection. So we hope with this development we can kind of create a node there in the community.

Are there bike racks on-site?

Currently there is none shown on this site plan but we do plan to provide bike racks. There is ADA accessible parking available as well.

Saw that.

And a new trash enclosure which was not previously provided on the property.

There will

be significant side improvements made that will help bring the property up to meet in today's code standards.

And the entry to the parking is from Kanata, right, correct?

So the entrance if you bring up the site plan, it is from lot yes, Kanata and then there's an exit only

On El Paseo.

On El Paseo. And the intent is to keep that circulation kind of moving through the rear parking lot. That used to be a former bank building, it used to be a drive through there. So that use unfortunately is not viable anymore. So we're looking at adaptive reuse opportunity to how do we invigorate the property and look at new opportunities. So this was something that we came up with that can provide a smaller space for tenants that can rent and don't need a large space on the Ground Floor any longer and kind of subdivide the space into different uses with different off peak and on peak hours so that parking can work and the hours of operation can work together. There

are a number of new doors being provided and I was wondering as well as like the glazing enlargement. I was wondering if there was any more detail on that that could be provided. It's just kinda here in like the elevation drawing, but there isn't really much about Oh, there's like a proposed door frame and assembly. I know there's like paint colors but those are really about the walls

and the

shingles and the fascia.

So the applicant, can you

Mara, you don't mind, there's floor plan showing the cafe or the restaurant there that maybe it may help. There is no window or door schedule produced at this time. It will that will be produced during the building permit plan check process. But we wanted to really open up the space and kind of create that retail open space feel. So this image here actually kind of shows it nicely.

This area here will be opened up the stucco that was previously there did not provide that light and air to pass through. So there's a new window proposed there. There's a new door entry on the side there that would be a new door entry for the patio as well. So looking to kind of open up that space to the patio and create make it more inviting to the restaurant or cafe and to the patio.

Yeah, that all makes sense to me. I mean I think that we're tasked to just kind of ensure that the visual nature of those elements work with the existing architecture in the site. So I just get to think a little more information on that. The locations, the reasoning makes sense to me, yes.

The door type would be similar to what is existing there, which is a black frame door that is currently visible on the main entry. It will be a similar in size and look on the side entry. With the kind of like the several kind of like With the window paneling around it. So similar to what you see there on the front entry would be a similar on this side stucco, you'll see a similar type of look and feel. But we wanted to keep the same context of the building throughout.

May I make a recommendation? So that that is absolutely part of the design review. So it's it's it gets approved here before it goes to building permit. Project, so we probably really should have seen the door schedules. But I'd be willing to propose that we approve the project, but you come back and get approval if it's okay with you since you're our architect that he bring you the details on the door and window schedules. And if you're okay with it, I would be okay with it. Because I trust you as the architect. But so that's I'm just throwing it out there that that could be an option.

Yeah. I appreciate that. And if that's something the board wants to make a recommendation as a condition we're happy to oblige by that and I'm happy to sit down with you and share some ideas with planning staff as well.

Lucas, Lucas, you look like you have something to say.

Okay. So couple of things on that piece. I'm loving the direction that you're going with that. The only concern that I would have with it is I think we can craft a condition that spells out what you're talking about. Giving authorization to one commissioner to approve something moving forward sounds like we're taking a public hearing item and moving it to the front counter essentially.

Instead, what I would offer is final approval through the community development Department or even the Community Development Director with guidance by by one of the commissioners and I think you can assign that to to mister Chesley. I think that would be okay. Think That's that way we're we're addressing right. Yeah. So then we're okay. Alright.

For sure.

Alright. The other thing that I wanted to mention sorry. I'm just going back to the to Ohio Avenue and the conversation that was starting to to to come up there. I just wanna make the commission and I'm not sure that the applicant is aware of this, but we have a a phase two going that's currently being considered for ATP. So that is Ohio Avenue all the way across, all the way to the edge of the the community to the city.

So that piece, the bulb outs, those different types of things are certainly being considered not by the city, I mean the city is an applicant to what's going on with with that, but it's Caltrans mainly that maintains that road and then we've gotta get authorization to do any work there as well as utilities as well. So I just wanted to point that out. I know that that there's always conversation around the pieces that that happen and the interactions that happen along OA Avenue, so.

Is the planning commission, do they get the ability to review that plan? Because that's kind of our bailiwick.

It is. The planning commission did see that in the phase two or the phase one piece quite a number of years ago. Think I had just started here. Phase II was a part of that discussion but was in very early stages. When I say very early, felt like it was back in the napkin for Phase II where there was a lot more information that was provided to the Commission at that time.

That's it.

Related to, I guess related to this idea of how to take a second review of the door schedule and I'd recommend, you know, something where we have an understanding a little bit clearer of what the existing looks like. You know, the image right now is sort of from an angle and it's a little hard to see just then it can be really clear this is what is here and this is how we're looking to kind of match with that in order to make it an expeditious review.

Okay. Are there any other questions or comments?

I think the only other question I had, we're here with a white building and we have the Navajo white starting up right down the street. And it seems like that would be something for you to consider since you're not too far off of that shade. I wonder if you would consider unifying just to clean up that presentation if you will.

Are you making that a suggestion or is that a Yes.

I am happy to have it was Bijan, correct? Anne, provide thoughts on that. Is there flexibility on that?

Are you guys my understanding, the building was actually recently painted. It recently there were some stucco that was recently redone. But I'm happy to discuss that with my father and see if that's something we can consider.

Yes, I don't think it would be anything I would see as a requirement but certainly if it was something that could be considered it would match into.

And good faith with speaking with Mr. Chesley here and the Director that could be an item also we can discuss that per view as part of that director approval. If that's a condition that you want to request, you can look at that.

Or just as a thought the next time you need to paint.

Actually, I'm not a fan of that idea. Okay. Sorry. I do think that the Navajo white looks great for our downtown. And having some kind of background buildings, which I would call this coming into town when you turn the corner and you see those buildings, it's I think it's you know, there's a a wow factor there, and I don't think everything has to be the same color downtown. I'm fine with a neutral color for this building in particular.

Yeah. Fair color.

Okay. I just had a question about and it this is no big deal. But the landscaping, I know that you're basically copying what's there. Mhmm. But you have a couple, the sedge, spec. And I'm just asking if you could just maybe replace that one with a native. Native. California native. There's a couple options that look just like that, but just do the native.

Sure.

And if you can limit the what is it? You already have it there, the Nandina.

Mhmm.

That's a little bit of an invasive. It's not on the California invasive list, but if you could replace any or plant any new plants native that have that same format in size, that'd be Yeah.

We can look at more drought tolerant landscaping there.

But everything else looks good, the Cianothus and even the Verbena.

Great, thank you.

Looks good.

Anything else? I would like to agree with Larry Steingold's comment about the city needing to consider parking in general. Downtown is becoming very busy and tight and if there is a way to get a parking ramp somewhere in town it would alleviate that stress. And again to make sure that this corner the safety of the people walking on this corner is in mind as traffic patterns are considered and changed. With that, I must say I really like the idea of what you're doing and look forward to seeing what kind of retail you bring in and what kind of restaurants you bring in.

Thank you. I appreciate your time.

What kind of restaurant is it?

At this time, there's no tenant in mind. We're looking to to build a space and hope they come.

And they will come. Okay. Thank you. Well, if there are no other comments by the commissioners, I would entertain a motion to approve this DRP. Give her a break.

I move that we adopt a PC resolution approving design review permit 25Dash007 and conditional use. Am I on the right thing here? No. No.

003?

003. Yes. CUP 25003 from a for a change of use from single use business administrative offices for a specialized school to include retail and restaurant uses as well as outdoor dining based on the findings and conditions. With the caveat, with the added condition that the applicant come back to the community development director and Commissioner Chesley to review the window and door schedules.

I second that.

Sherry, could we have the vote? Stewart? Aye. Chesley?

Aye. Ray Schmidt? Aye. Murphy? Yes.

Okay, moving on to item four. We have a request for a zone change from business professional to commercial to allow an existing business to include the sale of alcohol at the Ojai Gas and associated convenience store on Maricopa Avenue A highway. Could we have the staff report on this, please?

Yes. Thank you, chair and commissioners. And again, forgive me for repeating some of what you just said. The applicant is requesting planning commission review and recommendation of to the city council for a zone change from business professional to commercial for the site located at 1124 Maricopa Highway. This is to allow for the sale of alcohol and bring an existing gas station, which is Ojai Gas, the associated convenience store into conformance regarding the zone designation.

No exterior modifications are proposed through this project. Pursuant to ten two five zero three of the Ohio Municipal Code, service stations, including gas stations, are not permitted in the business professional zone. However, are permitted in general commercial subject to Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit. And due to a previous nonconformance of this existing gas station in 1996, the property owner requested and received approval from the Planning Commission at that time of a conditional use permit to operate the existing gas station. That was CUP 96 dash six.

Pursuant to section ten two twenty four thirteen, a conditional use permit shall continue to be valid upon the change of ownership of a site or business change, service services changed, or use for the structure that was subject to the permit application. So for this reason, the gas station that's existing may continue to operate in the c 1 zone if and when changed from the business commercial zone under this existing conditional use permit. Pursuant to section ten two five zero three of the or excuse me, of the Ohio Municipal Code, the existing convenience store is not permitted in the BP zone, the business professional zone. The sale of alcohol is also not permitted in the business professional zone. However, both these uses are permitted in the C1 zone.

The convenience store is currently existing, so a change of use would excuse me, a change of zone correct the noncompliance aspect of that convenience store and then would also allow for the sale of alcohol in the convenience store. There are two other gas stations within the city limits, and they both include a convenience store, and they both sell beer and wine. Again, these uses are allowed by right in the C1 zone, not the gas station. They need a use permit, but the convenience store and the sale of beer and wine. And the reason I'm bringing this up and that it's pertinent is because this business, and also property owner, he's the business owner and property owner, he's trying to stay competitive within the city.

The project is located on a major thoroughfare between medical offices and the state transportation storage yard. Up on the screen, you can see the different zones and the surrounding neighborhood. It's directly across the highway, Highway 33 from the shopping center that includes Yvonne's grocery store as the anchor, and it has attached retail and restaurant uses. And on that site, there's also a stand alone liquor store. Directly behind the gas station to the east is a veterinary hospital.

And the surrounding uses are relevant because I want to indicate to you the reason I'm including those is to indicate that it's a very diverse area, and it's heavily commercial, and it's a prime area to change the zone to to general commercial. So should the planning commission enter into or entertain supporting this request, there are findings that are required according to or pursuant to ten two twenty seven zero seven, and they are included in your draft resolution. And the applicant has made their justification, and staff has put that into the resolution and the findings for you. A zone change from BP to C1, that's business professional, to general commercial, will make the currently nonconforming convenience store and the sale of alcohol conforming uses. If the Planning Commission were not to entertain this request, the existing convenience store would remain nonconforming and no expansion to allow the sale of alcohol would be permitted.

And please note, as previously indicated, the applicant who is also the business owner and property owner is seeking the change in the zone to be in compliance with the municipal code and to also stay competitive in the gas station market within the city. So more background for this project includes that on 06/18/2025, the then Planning Commission reviewed a concept review of this proposed zone change, and minutes were included in your packet. However, as previously stated in your staff report, the staff and the commissions take action minutes, and so they're not very detailed. So I also included in the staff report that you may want to listen and watch the video from that evening. And if you had the opportunity to watch the video, then you saw that there was support at the time from some of the commissioners for a zone change from BP to C1.

Staff is recommending approval subject or to the city council of approval subject to the findings and we do have an applicant here this evening to answer further questions.

Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

I have a question for staff. I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly if I look at the general plan. The objective in the general plan is to move that zone toward commercial.

The general plan, both the BP and the C1 are in compliance with the general plan land use designation of general commercial.

And then second question, which would be for the property owner, do they currently hold a license there? And what kind of license?

You hold that one until we bring him up? Okay. Then at this time, I will open the public hearing. Do we have anyone who would like to address this item in the audience?

This is actually the applicant. Do you want to let the applicant add to my presentation before you open it up to a If final you would like. Yeah, go ahead and if you want to add to my presentation or have anything to say yourself.

Well, I guess just to I have to re literate re reiterate a little bit. Just my name is Evelyn Abbasi. I'm a represent the property owner at 1124 Icopa Highway. Many I'm everyone is here. It seems like they have they've visited the Shell gas station.

It's a it's a family run business. Been part of Ojai since 1962. And under this family stewardship for nearly thirty years. Family very deeply invested in the community and committed, to remaining here long term. So in June to, I came first I first came before you in June, 2025 for a conceptual review to discuss what the proper path would be and just, forward to allow this family business to just be competitive, to remain competitive and sustainable.

I wanna clarify that that the proposal was just for beer and wine, not hard liquor, so that that this gas station could operate on equal footing with others in the city. And then and during that discussion, it became clear that the cleanest and most appropriate mechanism was a zone change. In other words, it's the it's not simply just alcohol sales, but it was a zoning alignment. We we filed that. We followed that direction.

That's why we're here today. You know, so again, while it was triggered to to as a request to sell beer and wine, we're we just need to we're trying to remain competitive. And the broader purpose here is is consistency. We wanna ensure that the zoning reflects the long standing commercial reality of the site and the character of this corridor. Now if you reviewed the prior meet council council meeting, we did have support and pushing, hey.

You need to do a zone change. There was some discussion about potentially modifying or getting a CUP. That was after the fact saying saying that that is not a path that we can take. So I we're asking here for this gas for this gas station to be conforming, to allow this, to operate with just the the the grow the store, the convenience store that's currently there is would not without the zone change is is gonna be a a nonconforming use. So, again, just, you know, we respectfully ask for your support to to rezone this property to c one and and to recommend approval.

We're we're open to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Evelyn. No problem. Okay. At this time, I will open the public hearing.

Thanks.

And I have a card from Larry Steingold.

Larry Steingold. I think it's a good way because most places sell beer and wine here anyway, most gas stations, most food stores, so it's not out of line. But to use competition as a reason for zone change or variance or anything does not do anything for the property. That's the business. So is there some way you can give them the variance without using competition or business.

It's like I want a zone change because I want more business. That's not the right way to do zoning or variance in my way of thinking. Does it clean up zoning? Does it make it more concise? Does it make it a more unifying concept? Does it make it better for the city, not just for the business? Because the business could come and go. But what's the right zone for that usage for their it should have been changed years ago, straightened out, cleaned up, here we are. But you keep mentioning competition or she keeps mentioning competition. And that's not the reason for the zone change in my book. That's why you should give it to them and go forward because this makes sense.

Thank you, Larry. Are there any other comments online, Sherry? No. Any other in the audience? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn the discussion over to the commissioners. Do you have questions? I'll bet you can.

Well, I think I have a similar kind of rolling off of Larry's comments there. It's not, I mean, it's not like particularly obvious to me, but I guess for you Lucas or Mora who really have their head in the zoning map all the time, How do you feel about this? I mean, you're making the recommendation. I guess the one thing I note is that there is not a lot of BP on this map. So to remove BP.

But maybe BP is a way of the past anyways. I guess I'm wondering like is there a thinking here, you know, in how it relates to to the map in this area since they are both, you know, as you said, fine in the general plan, you know. So is there like a, you know, but definitely BP is much more restrictive.

So I think you just said some of it actually in your question and that is that the site is or the area is heavily commercial and this whole corridor is heavily commercial, and the zone that's being proposed is allowed in the general plan land use designation, or it's supported there at the C1 as well as the BP. It's a commercial use and that's permitted in the C1 zone subject to a conditional use permit. So makes sense to change the zone out from BP to general commercial.

I think my question also is that like if we were talking about the m one zone, you know, we'd be like, this is this is all the m one we have in Ojai, you know. We shouldn't really change that. And I'm not like so it's I don't think we have the same sort of like attachment necessarily to the BP, but it is it seems like a a kind of a rare zone. So I'm just kind of curious if Yeah. We can talk a little more about that.

Can we like, can we go back to the back train to maybe June 2025 when we

Mhmm.

Had this kind of in-depth conversation and this is kind of for the community as well as commissioners that weren't necessarily seated here. So there was a couple of things that we were looking at here from a concept review. So the nice thing about the concept review is it really just provides kind of that, hey we are thinking about doing this, there is other options out there but we think this is the most appropriate one. There was other options that they could have gone, variance is not an option, I just want to put that on table, that is not an option for something like this. There is another option which would have been a text amendment to this code which would have allowed across the board for BP through a CP process basically for a gas station to continue to have the alcohol to also have the convenience.

So it would have allowed it across the board, not just to this site but also all BP. Mhmm. And looking at that, the intent of the BP is to be more restrictive and and careful in terms of how it how it handles each of those uses along Ohio Avenue. Mhmm. The street is C 1, right?

So it logically makes sense when you're looking at it from a planning standpoint to look at it from an expansion standpoint, expanding that use across the street in an area that already kind of functions as a c one use and coupled with the facts that the other gas stations not a competition piece because understand that from a finding standpoint, we're not looking at competition. Obviously from a business standpoint, competition, but from a finding standpoint in terms of what we're looking at, we're not looking at competition. Instead we're looking at what is the flavor across Ohio Avenue and what you're seeing consistently, the other two gas stations that are east of here are both C1 and mind you, similar size in terms of how they operate and similar operation practices. Obviously they are different businesses but similar operation practices. Then we look at what the findings specifically call in terms of the zone change.

Now the nice thing about this is that we already have a kind of a foundation from a land use standpoint. So the land use from a general plan standpoint already gives you really good building blocks. From a general commercial standpoint, you're not having to change that. It's identifying consistency with BP and C one. So instead we're just looking at the C one, the flip to kind of open up the playbook for how this use can continue to operate.

Go ahead. Well I just, I mean is that like, is that then a goal in some way? I guess is my question.

Yeah, I think that's the

first

question is looking at the map, why do we have this BP and just being a planner here in the past, I'm just thinking that at some point in time we wanted to have more professional offices, medical offices associated with the hospital that's on Maricopa Highway. Some of those didn't get built. They were approved but never got built, the ones on Church Road. And new state laws are kind of messing with our BP. I'll explain that if you want.

But I guess the question is, at one point as a community we thought we wanted business professionals down Maricopa Highway. So is that still true? And I would say no, we don't. We want the gas station there. I think most of us in town use that station. I use other stations too, but I use that station. It's very convenient. It makes sense there. It's on the corner. Know, it's not a corner, but it's right there, Maricopa Highway.

You're coming into town. It makes sense to have a gas station there. So I'm I'm very supportive of the zone change, to allow, the alcohol sales. But I have to say I'm a little concerned about the CUP portion of it. That's not on the agenda right now.

But I think there's a lot of outside storage and there's a C train that was brought in. There's some other things on the site like ramps for the risers that are there's two sets of those, one in the back, one on the side. Those aren't really permitted there. You're not supposed to do work outside so those ramps really shouldn't be there. My concerns are more operational with the CUP and not necessarily with the zone change.

I would support the zone change 100%. I am all on board with that. I think it makes sense and I think we want it there. We have been using it and it makes sense. But I don't know if we can somehow look at the CUP at some point or at least address some of the issues.

I think the things that, to Commissioner's point, are co compliance related and there have been ongoing co compliance cases that have been either resolved or ongoing. As you may or may not be aware of, I don't know if I've mentioned this to the commission but we are transitioning from a reactive co compliance format to a proactive which then allows us to open the playbook in terms of how we operate versus waiting at the, on the sidelines for complaints to come in and then to actively go after or at least review and pursue compliance. Instead, now we can go out and kind of have that forethought to, I mean, necessarily saying that we're going after everybody, anybody at all hours of the night, but we're being strategic about how we roll that out. So, to that, to your point, yes, the CUP is actively being reviewed and certainly we've already talked to the applicant, the property owner about those ongoing issues.

Okay. For sure. Mean because I think we don't wanna add more allowances to the site if there's issues on the site existing.

Exactly, exactly. So, complicating the

can be addressed existing prior to it going to city council or something.

We, I certainly we can look into that, absolutely.

If it goes.

Yes, I guess picking up on that point, the owner have any comment in that regard? My comments are kind of along the same line. And then the I live there, use it, drive by a few times a day. And then the only other I guess the only other question I have is, it seems logical to me that we're creating effectively kind of a node that is a commercial node coming in there. And the liquor store across the street has actually stopped selling liquor in the last few weeks.

And so things are changing in that neighborhood a little bit. But it does seem like there's kind of a C1 node. And then yes, people need offices. And we kind of want that space. And so it seems logical to say, okay, C1, that's where the node ends, keeps them effectively the business they've been for several years, but it gives them additional permission. But I'd be interested just to hear your comments on the CUP piece as the owners.

I hope it's okay. I have Alan. Good

evening. Alan Nelson. I'm with Marquette Consulting. I've been assisting with

the With the application. And just to make sure that we can fill that, I can answer the questions. I was a little confused a little bit with the the the existing CUP because I think issue well, I'm I'm not aware of what you guys were discussing as of right now. However, you know, the the issue with the CUP, that's the concern that we have is that it's nonconforming. You know, this the the CUP allows the for the service station, but not for the convenience store or any sales or to do anything in auxiliary to that. So, you know, can you can you redirect the question that you're asking so that way I can get more of, you know, clarification on it?

Right. So I know that when the original CUP was approved, you it you were able to get a CUP in the BP zone because the zoning code at the time didn't address convenience stores at all. It wasn't listed. So because it wasn't prohibited, the city could allow you to get a CUP Mhmm. In that zone. Well, that doesn't now our

our code is different. It's been updated. So that actually is a good point. Well, it's because so this the CUP was was in 1999. So we so the property owner wasn't aware that there was a nonconforming use until we asked for a conceptual review and then it was brought up. And since that time, we took proactive that's that's we took proactive measures and steps to ask for the zone change to kinda correct that along with others. Yes. And so we don't you know, we we were not aware of any issues. No. It's just like there's additional new issues?

No. There's no issues with what you're asking. I I think I think at least I can only speak for myself. I think the zone change makes sense, and you'll get the alcohol sales that you want out of the if if it is approved, the zone change to c one. Correct? Right?

Correct. And, again, that just just it makes it would change us to c one, but we don't have we, you know, we there's steps with a, b, c, you know, and training and things just so you're aware. You know, additional steps to acquire, but the zoning is is is, you know, one of the issues is a big issue. And, again, if you've seen the, you know, you've seen the map, everything now just Ojai has changed since 1962 when the gas station was first there to now. So we're just So getting back to the CUP part of my discussion

is just the operations. There's things that are on the site right now that are not really permitted.

So

some outdoor storage that's not screened. There's some ramps there that are, you know, associated with lifting the cars. There's two sets of those. Those are not permitted to be there. There's some things on-site that are just not permitted to be on-site. Okay. And that is a separate issue from the zone. Right.

That goes back to

the CUP Yes. John Yes. James. Correct. Right. But so it's separate from should

I we need to talk. So I am And the

CUP is not on the agenda right now.

So Yeah. So We need to, you know, address that. Yeah. And figure that out. Yeah. That'd be great. Yeah. That's definitely an agenda then.

Will you be applying for, what is it, 21 or what type of vacancy?

Believe it's a 20.

20?

Believe so.

Okay. Yeah.

And again, it's within our you know, there are certain that we have there's other requirements there. The the gas station, if the issue, you know, with with alcohol, you know, we have protocols of carting even now. We have cameras. We have you you know, we're gonna do whatever is necessary in what we've continued to do. And we're just hoping, you know, for your, approval on this.

And, again, it's consistent consistent with with our steps that we've taken, seeking the conceptual review and kinda asking, hey, this is where we're at. What's what you know, this is what we'd like to do. What is the steps that we need to take? And every you know, the point was you need to apply for a zone change. So we're you know, I hope that that can I hope that we can accomplish that today?

And, again, just to be clear, we've reviewed your resolution, the draft resolution, which is exhibit a, carefully, and we if it you know, we we agreed to any of those for those terms. So just look to so so put that on the record that we would be comfortable signing that resolution with the additional terms. K. Okay.

Are there other questions for the applicant? Okay. Hearing none, I must say I was hard pressed to grant more authorization to a convenience store that is already unpermitted. However, the gas station has been there forever. It makes sense.

We need one on that side and you have to do what you need to do to stay competitive. So I can see why you're requesting this change and I do support the zone change as I did last time. If there are no other questions I would entertain a motion.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to pass the resolution as outlined.

Okay, does that include the suggestion that we review the CUP situation?

Well, what Commissioner Chesley just said didn't. But I think that, as the director said, that's kind of a code compliance issue. And so and that then he went on to state that, you know, the the city's direction is to be more proactive with that. So having said that, I do also wanna remind you that you're making a recommendation to the city council for final review and consideration.

Okay. And,

can I just add a nugget here, in terms of the conversation? So, this is a change to the code, what's the change to the zoning map which is a part of the code, right? Within that, within your powers as a recommendation body to city council for final determination, you have the opportunity or the option here to add a condition. That condition could highlight the outdoor storage piece. Still, I'd, you know, recognizing that co compliance is taking a more active role but then also recognizing an either or and if then scenario where the if you wanna continue with the outdoor storage, you shall come back with a review of a conditional use permit.

The or is to just remove the the outdoor storage pieces. Right? It's within your power especially within something like this to offer that up and to have that as a condition moving forward.

Jonathan is the mover of the motion. Would you like to include?

Yeah, that seems like a sound inclusion.

I second that. Second.

Okay. Did you have something?

Okay. It's more than that. Right.

Yeah.

But. It it okay. We will let the motion and the condition stand as stated. Sherry, could we have a roll call, please? Stewart?

Aye. Rushmidt? There

a second?

Yes. Yes.

Chesley?

Yes.

Murphy? Yes. Okay.

Good luck with

updating your gas station. We will move on to item five. You bet. Yeah.

I was just gonna say just add a comment. I wanted to make sure I was within protocol. Sometimes it helps just to zoom out and be super plain in the language. And I think from my concern, you know, we're going to pour alcohol on a business that needs to be cleaned up and operated professionally. And I just think it's worth stating that in the most obvious way we can. So I just wanted to have that comment. You have something? Lucas.

Oh, we will. Yes, we can take a break. We will take a five minute break. We will resume at 07:30.