Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I am calling the meeting of the Planning Commission of July 15, 2026 to order. Could we have a roll call, please, Ida?

Chair Murphy?

Here.

Vice Chair Chesley?

Here.

Commissioner Raichmet? Here. Commissioner Hanson? Here. Commissioner Stewart?

Here.

Thank you. Bruce, would you lead us in the pledge, please?

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

Are there any additions or corrections to the agenda?

I see none.

Do we need a vote on that? Do we have to have a motion and approval or can we just accept it?

We can just accept it.

Thank you. Public communications, I don't see any cards for public communications. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? Is there anyone online, Ida?

No.

OK, then we will move on to the consent calendar. We have the minutes of the July 1 commission meeting. Are there any corrections or changes? Hearing none, could I have a motion, please?

I make a motion to accept the minutes.

I'll second.

Thank you. Roll call, Ida.

Murphy?

I'm sorry?

Murphy? Yes. Chesley?

Yes.

Reischmidt?

Wait. Abstain, right? Because I wasn't here. Abstain.

Reischmidt? Yes. Hanson? Hanson? Yes. Stewart?

Yes.

Okay. Disclosure of site visits and ex parte contacts. Brad.

Yes, I had a brief conversation with Mr. Blatz, the attorney who I understand is representing Cretona Institute, which I've spoken with Lucas and Mr. Cardenas about, but brief conversation with Mr. Blatz.

I briefly visited the site. That's all.

Katrina? I did not go out to Cretona, but I did go to item number three, the Ventura LLC.

Same with me.

And the same with me. Okay, moving on, we will open the appeal of director decision regarding penalties imposed by the community development director for removing a protected oak without permission. Property owner is Cortona Institute of Theosophy. Is there a staff report on this item?

Yes, thank you chair and commissioners. Again, this is in a repeat to what you just said that this is an appeal of a director decision regarding penalties imposed by the community development director pursuant to code section 4-11.13, which is enforcement. the Municipal Code for violation related to removing a protected tree without benefit of permit the property is located at 52 Cretona Street or some the other address would be 12 401 North Ventura Avenue So pursuant to Code Section 411-04, when permits are required, the municipal code requires a permit for removal of a protected tree. And the approval process is through the director of consideration of a tree permit application, which also requires the submittal of an arborist report. So the applicant in this case is the arborist, and he submitted an application with the arborist report requesting approval to remove a protected tree. The arbiter included that the tree had a history of limb failure, was in an advanced state of physiological decline and acute structural instability. Its biological vigor was extremely poor and so on. Just so you know, the report is in your packet. The resulting conclusion was that to ensure the safety of nearby residents, prevent damage to utility lines, and to protect adjacent structures, the recommendation was that the tree be removed. And that was the only definitive means of eliminating the risk of future failure. Along with a site visit conducted by staff, it's the department's policy to obtain a peer review when there's a tree permit application requesting a removal of a protected tree. So a peer review of the tree and arborist report was solicited by staff. However, the arborist that was solicited to do the peer review was not able to evaluate the actual tree. as it had been removed when he went out to the site. The arborist was able, however, to review the application, the initial arborist report and photographs of the tree before its removal. The arborist conducting the peer review concluded that the tree did not need to be removed and that additional pruning may have been possible to enhance the safety of the tree. A letter including penalty pursuant to 4.11.13 enforcement of the municipal code for tree removal without benefit of permit was mailed to the applicant including that any person who cuts, damages, or removes a tree in violation of the terms of this chapter responsible for property restitution and may be required to do any or all of the following one replace the protected tree by the donation of or by replanting two or more of such trees of reasonably equivalent size and value to the tree damaged or removed the number and size and location of this said equivalent replacement would be determined by the director of And number two is pay double the customary tree permit application fee and provide for replacement of the tree that was removed in the amount that is double the value using the appraisal standards of the ISA or other method of valuation acceptable to the director. So in this case, the tree permit application $225 so that would be times two reimbursement for the lost valuation of the tree removed by providing payment double the trees is a appraised value per the harvest report would be twenty eight thousand four hundred and twelve times two fifty six thousand eight hundred and twenty four the letter that was sent to the applicant included numbers one and two just want to make sure that you're aware of that where it says that the director can do any or all of the following it was all so it was the replace the protected tree by donation and then also the um the fees that i just mentioned So, pursuant to Section 411 , the appeal process of the code, there's an appeal process that allows any aggrieved party to file an appeal of a director's decision, including imposing of the penalty fees. The Planning Commission considers each appeal on its individual merits, considering the unique circumstances of the site, the arborist report, and the intent of the ordinance. The appellant and initial arborist have provided justification, which is in your packets. They've documented the chain of events and their stance regarding the proportionality of penalty along with a proposed mitigation alternative, and these are included in your packet. affirming the directors decision reinforces the city's commitment to protecting its urban tree canopy and ensuring fair consistent enforcement of local regulations this outcome also provides future applicants with clear guidance on the evidentiary standards required to qualify for mitigation exemptions. Please note that the evidence that's provided in the peer review did not substantiate poor health and reason for removal, nor did staff have an opportunity to inspect the tree. Therefore, the director determined that the penalties detailed in this report are applicable and the exemption, which is the basis for the applicant's or appellant's filed appeal is not applicable. Staff recommends that the Commission continue with conducting the public hearing, receive public testimony, consider the appellant's justification for appeal, and adopt a resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's decision to require the penalties specified in the report, or alternatively, make a motion and vote to revise the penalty and direct staff to return with a revised resolution at a later hearing. We do have the applicant here and if you have any questions of me before addressing them.

Apparently not.

I saw a hand. Did you want to go now?

I'll do the same. Let's hear from the applicant then.

If I may, I understand, I thought the applicant was actually Krypton, it may have been Mr. Millett. I'm Ryan Blatts, I'm an attorney here in Ohio, former council member, used to sit at that desk right over there. I'm gonna go ahead and just start this process a little bit to give you guys an overview, and I may clean up some stuff later on if you need me to. But also, there's a number of the parties involved who are gonna have an opportunity to speak, and they're free to answer any questions as well. We wanna make sure this is transparent and open and clear about what happened. because there's some context to this that definitely needs to be understood to know what was going on. First of all, Cretona is a very well-known institution in Ohio and they're very well-known, great land stewards of the land they have. They own a very large swath of land in that same area. What we're talking about is kind of the front corner where there's some housing. The attempt to take this tree down that there appears to be some contact, they did not try and do anything that was not completely abhorred and did not authorize a tree to be removed without permission. What happened is the permit application was put in, the arborist report was put in, and they were communicating with the city, waiting to hear back on what was gonna happen next. And at some point in that process, the contractor, Carlos with Tri-Valley, who was, hired to remove the tree, had contacted Mr. Mellet, who was the arborist who had done the report, and signals got crossed. And then somewhere in that communication, it came across to Carlos that the permit had been approved and that he could go ahead and start the work. That was unbeknownst to anybody else. So nobody authorized him to start it. They didn't know he was going to. And Crotona never had any idea. It was only a few days later that they found out the tree had actually been removed. So there's a very good faith aspect to this that Crotona was maintaining the entire time and they didn't jump the gun. Unfortunately, I have no better way to describe it than signals got crossed and the tree remover thought that the permit was in place and in good faith moved forward thinking that he had the authority to go ahead and do that. And later it's been determined that that permit had not been approved as of yet. Subsequent to that, the The city sends out Mr. Janskow, and he doesn't have an opportunity to review the tree at that point. But his report from that appearance is very short. He essentially starts, and one thing that was missing in the summary he received is he indicates the tree's not there, but he immediately makes an accusation that it was probable that another tree was also removed. There's no pictures or other evidence to support the second tree removal, but there is some comments about red bark being on the ground to the west of where the original tree was. You can see this in his report. It's one page and it's only a few lines where he really does any analysis about the tree. Subsequently, he says, I looked at some pictures and pruning could have done it. The tree didn't need to be removed. Mr. Mellick did a very complete and thorough analysis inspection and report of the tree and it was in very poor condition. We respectfully decline Mr. Scowl's report and it is absolutely unequivocally denied and not true that there was a second tree that was removed. It makes no sense in the first place that Crotona would be getting a arborist report and a permit for one tree thinking they were secretly going to take out the next tree anyway that's just not what occurred what did occur is after the first tree was removed it had been chopped and where the wood chipper had spit the red chips out which is a picture that is included and i don't know if you guys have received this and i apologize because i got in this late but in elena who's going to speak who works for crotona she has a picture of the actual red bark and you can tell It's not, you can't really tell where the old tree was, but long and short of it is, that's where they put it in the wood chipper, the wood chipper spit him out, and on the other side of the road, somehow Mr. Scow believed that that was evidence to support a second tree being removed, but that never occurred. What it looks like is upon his inspection and seeing the tree's not there, and then jumping to a conclusion that a second tree had been removed, that his impression of the situation was already tainted and that he did not seem supportive of doing a thorough analysis of what he could, With the respect being shown that yes, the tree could not be there to be reviewed anymore but his very short very minimal analysis is Contradictory to the very thorough and extensive analysis that mr. Mellott did who's also a well-known arborist and has a very great reputation in the city of Ohio as well so we want to make sure that that mistake happened but the conclusion that occurred after it and the accusation of a second tree don't seemingly fit the the 57,000 dollar penalty that's here and it's still unclear after a conversation earlier about whether that's the limit on the fine or they were looking at another tree and that would be doubled. That was confusing as well. We are asking for the commission to overturn the determination from what the planning director did and look at this as a viable permit that should have been approved pursuant to a pursuit of a solid arborist report and pay the fine. And really nothing else should be done after that. But I've spoken to Crotona and other mitigation efforts if they needed to provide them, they'd be willing to consider that. Whether we can figure that out today or that's something that would require a subsequent meeting with staff or to come up with a solution of planting some saplings and seeing them through to maturity, they're willing to do things like that. But a $57,000 fine in relationship to this one is punishing the innocent party because Crotona had no intent they did absolutely nothing wrong they unfortunately were the victims of somebody misinterpreting what it meant to have a permit that had been approved and was ready to go and there's clearly no evidence to support a real conclusion that there was a second tree that was removed and it just didn't exist so the The actual report, when you dig into Mr. Millett's report, there's a number of very concerning things. There's wires running through the tree. The tree overhangs an area where children are playing. It's very diseased. You can see in the pictures that are included there, bark missing. I've done a lot of these tree situations in Ojai, and I'm not an arborist, but my layman's opinion is that that tree did not look like it was in very good shape and it was a danger. This is somebody who's also had two city tree limbs fall on my house before. So I'm always a little more skeptical, but they do fall down, they do cause problems, and it is very dangerous. Once the Cretona had a report from their arborist saying this tree's a danger, they were antsy to get a permit done because they were concerned about liability and what could possibly happen if something happened between them knowing it's an issue and the families that live there who were very concerned about it. but they never ever wanted to move forward or intended to move forward without a permit being processed and approved and they were under the complete belief that their arborist report and that his determination was more than sufficient that the permit would ultimately be approved. They were just waiting and patiently waiting and contacting the city and following up. The timeline on all this isn't very much. The permit application went in on April 8th and it was May 7th by the time when Mr. Scout came out. It was only, I don't know the exact date of when the tree was actually removed, but it was not that much before that. But it wasn't immediately after the permit was pulled. It was after the city had requested additional information, and that was, I believe, when Carlos had communicated back with Mr. Mellet's office, remember that crossing the wires, signals got crossed part happened, was something that, oh, they just got the final information they needed so they could do whatever's next. That, to him, sounded like the permit had been approved. So the context of all this is important because to Crotona, who's a non-profit religious organization that's been organized in Ohio for over 100 years. does not have the financial capability to take a hit for sixty thousand dollars it's not realistic it's going to really send them in a tailspin but that being said they have a lot of land and they're willing to try and do something to fix this problem while they're also willing to say look we understand that things got screwed up and the permit wasn't done yet but we did not know anything about this and we definitely didn't intend to do this and the last thing we want to do is try and get a city tree removed without all the proper permissions because Crotone, as many of us know, are not stupid. They know how the city is about trees. The last thing they wanted to do was cause any problems. And had they been aware that Carlos was going to come out and take that tree out and the permit wasn't ready, they would have jumped in front of it and stopped it in a second had they known. So that's the current situation we're at. We're open to ideas on how to fix this, but we want to make it very clear. We believe Mr. Mellott's report should stand on its own as a solid, absolutely correct indication that the tree needed to be removed. They went through the proper permitting process. They were not trying to jump the gun. Signals got crossed and un- Unfortunately, what is not their fault, they are now dealing with the responsibility of. But as you know, the fine associated with is very extensive. So we're hopeful that we can find a solution that works for everybody, but isn't as punishing as would be the same penalty had they done it in the darkness of night and pretended not to tell anybody. That should not be handled the same way as somebody who is in good faith in the middle of a process and in good faith. Their arborist and their contractor believed he was able and legally able to take the tree out. With that, I'll leave it to the rest of our guests. Unless there are any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Blatts. Does that conclude the... Okay, come on.

Good evening. I'm Bill Mellott. I'm the arborist who wrote the report. I'd just like to give you a little timeline on what happened with this situation. I was contacted by Carlos Garcia, the Tree Service, Tri-Valley Tree Service, because he wanted to get a permit to remove or evaluate a tree on the Cretona property. So he contacted me. I came out. I did my observation of the tree. did a full report on it the tree in my opinion was a hazardous tree it had multiple previous branch failures large ones in fact in one of those photos you can see a large branch in the top of the tree sitting there waiting to fall off the property owners came to me and said they were concerned about the tree that young children played in that area and there were small bikes and stuff around there So I did my report and submitted it to the city on April 7th. On April 8th I followed up with the contractor and told him the permit had been submitted and currently was being processed. On April 21st we reached out to the planning department to request status of the processing. and heard back from them on the 30th where they requested the precise location of the tree. So they hadn't went out and looked at it yet. That's over two weeks, almost three weeks later. May 1st, two days later we gave them the location of the tree and then on May 4th the planning staff transmitted a written confirmation acknowledging the receipt of the localization data. Then on May 20th we reached out to the city again requesting the status of the permit. On that day they got back to us with a written response saying that the applicant was in violation and would be issued a premature tree removal. So there was a long timeframe there. And during that period, Carlos reached out to us numerous times saying, is that permit approved yet? And then this is where the unfortunate part came in. He reached out to my office staff and said, was the permit approved? And they said, no, but the application has been submitted. Somehow he thought she said yes. He said, can I come over and get it? She gave him the application. He thought that was the permit. And he proceeded to cut the tree down. There was a communication thing there. His English skills are not as well, unfortunately. That's where the real problem came from. that transfer of the application in him thinking that was the permit. He went out and cut the tree down. Then he called me back, well I got this and I said, hey you cut that tree down, without the permit. He said no I had the permit. I said that wasn't the permit, that was the application and I said well we can come out and determine from looking at the trunk that the tree was in bad condition. Unfortunately they grinded the trunk so there was no evidence left for Jan Scow or anyone to look at to at least have some idea of what that tree looked like except from my report in the photos. So that's kind of the timeline of everything and what happened. I think it's unfortunate the applicant was everybody was just waiting for that permit and it was just a misunderstanding that it got cut down.

Thank you Mr. Mallett. Do you have any questions for the arborist?

In your evaluation or valuation, can you explain how that's done and because in my mind it seems like a hazardous tree would have zero value so looking at attachment B seven of seven is your valuation can you explain how that's done and why it wouldn't be zero if it was hazardous so sometimes that's a great question that we valued the tree kind of

There's a formula that we just plug the numbers into and give it a percentage rating on all these things and the size and the condition and the location and it comes out. But yes, the tree really does have very minimal value going forward. And just to let you know, I write hundreds of reports a year and I've written thousands of reports over the years I've been in this business for a long time so I'm very confident that tree was in decline and not a realistic tree to save unfortunately I'm in the business of saving trees when we can we do okay so like when you say like I'm just curious because

You know, it's a big number.

The values always come out really high on those. It's just, unfortunately, I don't really agree with the way that ISA form works, but that's what we're given, and that's what we have to.

So, but, like, for condition rating for health, you said 40%. You gave it a number, and that was just your discretion.

Right.

You could have said 20.

20, yes.

You could have said 0%. Mm-hmm. Okay, but you thought maybe there's some life in it or?

Yeah, there's some life in it.

Okay. All right. I'm just trying to clarify how that's done. Thank you.

Yes, I have a quick question with the, what happens, I've been around in some areas where the hazard is so great that you have to rope off the area and so forth.

Yes.

And generally, safety issues trump anything in public sphere. So what does it take if you really find a dangerous situation for it to take urgent action?

Sometimes if I feel that the tree is in imminent danger of falling over, like if it's the middle of the winter and I'm seeing evidence, we'll go to the city, county, wherever, and let them know that we think this tree needs immediate attention. And sometimes a hazard tree, we don't know when they're going to fall over. They could fall over that day. They could fall over a year from now. But they're, in my opinion, it's going to fail in some short-term thing or shed a branch. And this one had a history of shedding branches.

Were there power lines involved? Yes. So power lines themselves were involved. Yes.

That seemed to indicate a significant risk Thanks When did the tri-valley tree service do you know when they collected the what they thought the submission which they thought was the permit from your office

I believe that was somewhere around I don't have the exact date but I think it was somewhere around the 15th of May or something like that And then just to follow up on that there's no like there isn't necessarily a formal process

to submit for a tree that is in a quite dire or emergency kind of status. It's more just like you try to go to them directly and be like, hey, guys, we've got to really watch out. But there isn't a protocol that you've ever known about to submit for that?

If I may, and I was thinking about this with Commissioner Hanson's remarks, there's a provision in the municipal code for urgent circumstances that describes a process to follow. It's in the subsection 11.10 in that chapter.

Are you aware of that subsection?

I'm not off the top of my head. If I felt it was necessary, we just take it right to them right away. I mean, we submit as quick as we can, but we let them know.

Do you regard it now as a situation that was an emergency?

All hazard trees are an emergency, but the timeframe again is, it's really hard to say.

At what point would you go to this other process to deal with an emergency?

If I thought it was gonna be a whole tree failure, if I saw that there was lifting of the root system or something like that, or if there was a branch that was, had a crack in it that looked imminent you know and or weather was on the way that I knew was going to trigger something like that this situation didn't spark that concern okay thank you are there any other questions for Mr. Mellon

Yeah, so just, I think maybe just to like, I think maybe what the question there was at, what Katrina's question was about in this, so it's not your assessment necessarily that the tree was gonna fall down tomorrow, but it was definitely a tree that was at a, in decline and was based on this context, the electric lines being near homes, that it was more advisable to remove it than to, for it to remain.

There was no alternate really viable means of saving that tree. It's what we call it's in a decline spiral. Not likely to recover. Likely to cause damage or harm to somebody. More likely to do that than not.

Right. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Is there any other person from Crotona that needs to speak? Yes.

Yeah, and I have a few questions if no one else wants to come up.

I may have to remove the box. If it's too short, then you won't see me. Good evening, commissioners and city staff.

Could you please give us your name and later? My name is Elena, Elena Doval-Santos. Okay.

Yes. Okay. I am the resident head of Cortona. And I don't know, is there a time limit for me to speak? Okay. Because otherwise I would have my colleague read the rest of it. It's short. I shortened it. Honorable commissioners, thank you for having us tonight and allowing us to give our side to to show our thoughts regarding the denial of our appeal. This is, of course, difficult for us. The removal of the tree prematurely was certainly unintentional, as you already have heard. It happened without our knowledge. For years, the tree was dropping limbs, and our residents were concerned that their children may, or they themselves, or cars going by, could suffer from the limb failure. But we took the conservative approach, thinking that if we supported the tree with its basic needs and observe, give it a little time, maybe it could still make it. You never know. But when in the spring another large branch fell and narrowly missed the resident who was living in the house where the tree, in the lot where the tree stood, it became suddenly a serious public safety concern and a liability issue. We did not rush to take it down. We wanted to make sure we did it right and to comply with the city ordinance, we hired an arborist who submitted the report. He paid for the permit on our behalf and we waited, we waited weeks to hear back from the city about our application. Never at any time did we suggest we should go ahead and cut it. Had we intended to remove the tree without a permit, we would not have incurred the considerable expense and time of getting one. We would have just gone ahead and done it. But we didn't want to do it that way. We wanted to do it the right way. We would also like to say that we feel the penalty is very excessive for us. The tree had already been deemed to be unsalvageable by a certified arborist. In fact, in such cases, the Ojai Municipal Code would even allow the permit fee to be waived with no mitigation required. Of course, the tree was removed, and we deeply regret that the city staff could not inspect it anymore when they came. However, this occurred without our knowledge, our authorization, or any intent on our part to bypass the permit requirement. I would like to call your attention to the document that I just submitted today. On page two of that document I have photos. that I more recently received from the residents who have children nearby. They just wanted to show the kind of danger that the tree limbs falling was presenting to them. You'll see on the left a figure one, fallen branches in the middle of the street. and another branch that had been pulled to the side. There were several branch failures, some very large, big limbs, and some smaller ones. Smaller ones maybe not too bad, but when you get a limb that's big, it becomes very scary. And sometimes they couldn't even move it because, well, the cars needed to pass, but they were too heavy to be moved. We had to get a tractor once to push that big branch out of the way because no one could move it. We wanted to respond to the observations of the peer review arborist Jan Skow. And again, I would like to call your attention to page three of this document where there's another photo. Certified arborist Melitz, careful investigation revealed. that pruning was no longer a viable option for the tree. He had a lot of time to study the tree. In contrast, Mr. Skow's opinion, based on looking at a few photos alone, and I'm very sorry he didn't have a chance to inspect the tree as extensively, but he had to make an opinion based on very few photos alone. And his opinion was that it may still have been possible to do further pruning to enhance the safety of the tree. In Figure 2, on page 3 of the document in front of you, you will see the tree. It shows that there are very few limbs left on that leaning tree. The tree leans over the street, and there were very few limbs left. You might even see that the limb that is most to the right, that leans most to the left, on top of the street would have been the one likely he would want to remove and how many branches would be left from the photo you can see really this tree was very much deteriorated It had already been irreversibly weakened by so many lost limbs over the years and by excessive pruning by Edison for years because of the electrical wires that were above it. So very frequently Edison will come, they will start cutting and the tree gets hurt, it suffers. Well, Mr. Skow admitted that there was no way for him to make a definitive assessment since the tree was gone. Understandable. However, that doesn't make his opinion carry much weight in our, at least in our view. Mr. Skow also noted or insinuated that there was another tree that was removed. He said there is probable evidence that a second oak was removed and that was an incorrect assumption. There was no other tree that was removed. There is mulch shown on figure three on page four of your document. There is some red mulch there that is fresh, which we believe is what Mr. Skow may have seen. And it came from the wood chipping and shaving of the subject tree. There was no other tree. These were just residues from the removal of the first tree. And then if you look at the photo on the right, you will see that it's a very tight space there. There's not even any overhead room where a large tree or another mature tree could have stood. There was no space there. So it's very unlikely that Mr. Skow's opinion could be relied on. especially considering that he did not see either trees that he insinuated, well, the second tree that he insinuated we removed. I would like to point to the fact that Cortona is very committed to tree preservation. We regard all of our mature trees as living treasures. They are beloved elders that have watched over the property for many generations. We've been here more than 100 years. Our trees, sometimes 50 to 100 years old, suffered a lot during the drought, and of course there's disease. But every loss of a tree is deeply felt by our community. The prohibitive cost of tree removal is another reason for our efforts at preservation. We are a charitable, religious, and educational non-profit. We have very limited funds. And so removal of any type of tree has always been avoided unless they have fallen or present a serious hazard. We take stewardship of the land seriously in line with our philosophy of working with nature and being a sanctuary for native flora and fauna. We therefore request the commissioners for leniency. We believe that we acted responsibly. and that we are without any fault. Cortona should not have to pay the penalty for an honest misunderstanding that we had no part of. It might be also added that we never know if the longer processing time that the city now takes to act on a hazardous tree removal permit could have contributed to the confusion or misunderstanding of the tree cutter. To summarize, for more than 100 years, Krotona has been a responsible, respectful, and valued member of the community. We work diligently and at significant financial expense for a small nonprofit to contribute to the beauty of Ojai by preserving and maintaining one of the largest open spaces within city limits for the benefit of the community, our visitors, and future generations. We would like to see that the city could partner with us rather than punishing us for a mistake that we did not want to happen. Cortona therefore respectfully requests the commissioners to take into consideration all the facts in this case, absolve Cortona of any fault in this matter, and exercise discretion to waive the penalty on Cortona. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you, Elena. I am now going to open the public hearing can you save them for our discussion you have another person okay

My name is Maria Parrison. I have been a resident and a volunteer worker for Quetona for 22 years. And I currently, and actually from the beginning, have been the secretary of our board of trustees. I appreciate the need for the opportunity for offering a little bit more context to the discussion. One of the criteria for making this judgment about our situation was our history of stewardship. So I have just a little to contribute about that. First of all, the Crotona Institute is in full agreement with the city of Ojai's initiative for tree protection. Our mission, both as a corporation and as a residential community, appreciates the vision, the plan, and its timely implementation. Cretona's way of life is centered in the need for harmony among ourselves and with nature. All our relations, all our educational services reflect, however imperfectly, that ideal of mutual respect, cooperation, and collaboration. Wise stewardship requires no less. Cretona has for decades regularly consulted with arborists. Many of our trees were planted over 50, some over 100 years ago, or they were allowed to grow naturally to near residences and campus buildings. Disease, drought, electric lines, and underground obstacles have made survival difficult across our 115 acres for many trees, but especially for the oaks. We're learning, trying to apply best practices for sustainability. Gratona's land supports a wide range of wildlife and is an important corridor for their movement. We've been in conversation with the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy about establishing a substantial conservation easement. They have also officially recognized Crotona for integrating native plantings into our public gardens, and we've called on them regularly for help with further planning. to local and regional companies also working with nonprofits have helped us with these projects. Land contouring has already also begun to increase rainwater catchment, nourishing nearby trees while also helping us to conserve groundwater. Several months ago, Chan Skow helped with the evaluation of over a dozen trees we had concerns about during preparation for the summer fire season. We followed through on all his suggestions, recommended pruning, preventative pruning. The Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council has identified and mapped priority trees for removal. We've supported the 2027 grant applications also of others who we hope can help nonprofits with affordable assistance. One aspect of the city's response to this Oaks removal before permit approval concerned me. An important element of the permitting process for tree removal is the city staff site visit. Staff provide, according to your documents, provide the city with a layman's view to supplement the arborist's findings and recommendations. In this case, Despite the concern for safety clearly conveyed in Bill Mellet's report, weeks went by without a staff site visit. In fact, it was never scheduled, at least to our knowledge. Instead, after a lengthy delay without any contact of Crotona from the city, Arbors Janska was called in for another opinion. His view minimizing any safety risk was quoted as most significant in the conclusion of the administrative report. The misunderstanding leading to the removal of a dying tree before permitting is of course unfortunate, but the penalty proposed for removal is questionable, perhaps unwarranted. The financial penalty imposed will seriously delay Cretona's efforts to provide the support we need for the overall health and safety of the diverse trees and the greater oak woodland under our care. We ask the Commission respectfully to accept our appeal for exemption. Thank you.

Is there anyone else from Crotona that wants to speak? Okay.

Hello, my name is Liz. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. I'm a resident at Crotona and my mother has been a resident there for 22 years and is who was living in the home with the tree growing in front of her home and I wrote a whole thing that mostly was covered so she happened to be walking under that tree just moments just minutes before that huge branch fell and it was enough to crush a car so she was terribly frightened by that and my children who live right near that tree also constantly pass under and all the elders who are always driving underneath. I love that tree. My moms lived there since I was a teenager and of course we wanted to save it. So it wasn't something that any of us would have chosen to pursue unless there was a serious danger to our residents.

I just wanted to speak to that Thank you At this time I'm going to open the public hearing and the first card is from Bill Miley

I want to support the appellant in their request for a reversal of the planning director's verdict of guilty of removing an oak tree without a permit. Here's my thinking. I used the dates for this presentation that I got from Mr. Mellon. There appears to be good intent by Cortona on doing the proper city ordinance procedures. There could be a critical question about response time by city staff concerning the urgency of the matter. Please note the calendar days between the statements that I'm using for my argument. Item one. On April 7th, Don Mallett, certified arborist, working for the Cretona property assessment, delivered a tree removal application to the city planning department for a tree on 52 Cretona Street. This included a report, an arborist report. Two, 14 days later, on April 21st, Mr. Mallett asked the planning department for a status report indicating it was highly time sensitive to the hazardous of the tree. Three, nine days later, on April 30th, the city planning department requested Mr. Mallet at the exact location of the tree. Four, one day later, on May 1st, Mr. Mallet gave the planning director the location. Number five, three days later, on May 4th, the city sent Mr. Mallet a confirmation of the location. Item six, 16 days later, on May 20th, Mr. Mellick contacted the Planning Department to request an update. It had been over six weeks since the initial application. Item seven, the same day, May 20th, Mr. Mellick received a phone call and a letter saying a notice of violation would be issued for premature removal without a permit. Here are some of my points. On April 8th, Mr. Millett informed his landscape contractor he had submitted the tree removal application, item B. In the approval statement, Mr. Millett discussed the issue of potential language misunderstanding between he and the contractor. C, why did the planning department direct their contract arborist to do another tree appraisal when a certified arborist already had done one? Was there no contact with Mr. Mallet? There was no contact with Mr. Mallet asking about deficiencies in his report. It appears the planning department ignored or totally disputed Mr. Mallet's report. Or maybe they lost it. D, let's look at the intent here. Years ago in the corner of North Montgomery and Grand, there was a big 200-year-old oak tree, and one morning it was gone. They didn't get a permit. They just cut it down. They knew they violated the financial ordinance, but they did it for financial gain. They paid the fine. E, Cortona did what was right, hiring an arborist and filing an application and an arborist report. F, the submitted arborist report should have been good for the application. Apparently, it wasn't. No mention was made by the planning department of this report. And last. please seriously consider the intent to follow the rules. While working to maintain a safe environment for folks in the Katona area, I request your commission uphold the appeal.

Thank you. Thank you, Bill. I have a card from Guru Prasad. You're not going to speak, okay, thank you. Is there anyone online who wishes to address this item?

No one has their hands raised.

Okay, then I will close the public communications and we will return to the Planning Commission for discussion.

you have some questions brad uh yeah just a few things um and i'm gonna start with just a couple of questions for the staff uh to help me get my head around this a little bit um and i have a lot of experience i've lost several trees and have applied for the emergency policy and so Unfortunately, I know this world a little bit. Question for the city. What is the annual revenue from these kind of penalties look like for the city? How often do we have revenue from these kind of penalties and what are they like?

I can't speak to specific numbers, however, would you like to just take over? Continue. Well, in the five years that I've been here, I haven't processed a situation where a tree was cut down without a permit and therefore penalized through this process.

Okay, and so, oh, go ahead, Lucas.

Yeah, the seven years I've been here, this is really the first that I'm aware of that we've actually gone through. with this enforcement piece.

Okay, and so there's no annual budgeting or appropriation or hey, we're planning on 25 grand a year that we put in the city budget or P&L, 25,000 a year that we set aside because we know we're gonna have 25,000 bucks worth of fees or anything like that.

Yeah, correct.

Okay. Does Crotone have any history of tree violations? Is this the first time?

There's no history of tree violations that I'm aware of.

Yeah, okay. You know, and I think it's pretty clear At least it'd be interesting to hear from maybe the guy who actually cut the thing down, but it does appear that the circumstances are pretty well agreed with everyone on the fact that somebody came in and cut the tree down and kind of jumped the gun a little bit. I guess kind of a follow on question with that. I've dealt with several of the tree vendors in town. There is a wide range of quality in people who cut trees in the city of Ojai. And I'm wondering on our side as the city, if I want to come here and be an arborist or do something like that, do I get any sort of education or a primer or is there anything that I go through that allows me to be what I would call kind of a certified city contractor to be able to remove trees?

In order to do business in the city of Ohio, you need to have a business license. We don't have a training process for all the tree trimmers in town. But I think the director might have something else to add.

Interesting that you would bring that up because we've just recently had two workshops and in one of those workshops we talked about the educational piece because we have noticed that as well from a staff standpoint that there is this range of tree trimmers, removers that either have an educational background from that standpoint, have somebody on staff that understand how to address it, but the litmus test varies greatly. So it's trying to find a balance from an educational standpoint. There are other cities that require that, and we've been looking into that. Through the workshop, we've actually found that there's definitely an interest in that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and I only ask because I've had very specific experience here with people who are represented. They have arborist licenses. I followed up and checked on those licenses. Yes, you did 10 years ago. You do not have one today. You've done a bunch of work here and solicited work from us and so on and so. and kind of the root of that question is could a person reasonably grab an application and think it was a permit and would there would there be anything that they had familiar familiarity with to say hey that's permit that's a that's an actual application for permit and so I'm just trying to understand if I can respond to that piece as well we've actually gone from

The approval actually was stamped as a part of the application, so you would see an approved stamp on the application. We've gone paperless, so now instead you receive a document that identifies that you've been approved. and any any conditions that go along with that as well to to speak to the um licensed arborist piece there is a requirement as a part of this so for instance bill and others that that submit information as a part of a tree removal or tree trimming that qualifies they are required to identify that they are licensed we go in through and and verify that they are current and bill is

And in terms, so I live in the Arbolada and every Saturday at 8 a.m. the chainsaws crank up. And people presumably are cutting on the weekends when they know no one's gonna be around inspecting. And it can be a little bit irritating for sure. And I guess I'm wondering, to me there are signals that violators put off a little bit. They do it, somebody mentioned under the cover of night. That's a signal. Another thing they do is they do it on a weekend or a Sunday afternoon or something like that when nobody's around. Typically a signal of someone violating a process, to me, would not be that they go file a permit. And so I kind of feel like, and I'll pass on the dad joke of being stumped on what to do here, but I kind of feel like it's pretty clear they violated the policy. But then you get down to, well, what's the right way to treat this? The policy is designed to nail people who are violating the policy with intent to violate. We want to penalize you for doing something that you know you should not be doing. and I'm not really sure the set of circumstances fit this. I love your comment about what is the exact value and I have numerous trees on my property that have power lines all over them that have been hacked like crazy from Southern California Edison. I sit there and I look at those trees and I think maybe they should come down because there's a knock on effect. It's not just falling and hitting me or my mom or someone close to me. It's the fire danger. It's all the things that come with bringing a power line down. You know, I just think that this leans a lot toward understanding when is it right to, you know, really come down on people for violating the policy and what we do there. And then when do we take a look at the larger context of somebody who's, you know, a baked in piece of the philosophy of stewardship of Ojai. Not a lot of us have a 100-year record of doing the right thing in Ojai. So I think that is worth a lot. And so I'm thankful for answering those questions. Thank you. Okay.

Katrina. I just have a couple questions. So who pays for the peer review? Is that the consultant or the consultant? Is it the city or the applicant? City pays for it. Okay. So city pays for that. And does the city have a designated consultant arborist? Is Jan the city's arborist designated or is it just somebody you selected?

It's someone we selected. He's not the city arborist. In evaluating him, so a year to a year and a half ago, it was becoming clear that there was a need. I am not a licensed arborist. I do not pretend to know everything about trees. I rely on the expert opinion of licensed arborists such as Bill. However, when I'm questioning whether or not a tree is looking at, is proposed to be removed from the standpoint of an emergency standpoint. And litmus test has me questioning it. About a year and a half ago, we started looking at having a third party look at it. And a third party look at it from the standpoint of I was looking for someone that wasn't on the side of the city, wasn't on the side of an applicant, was on the side of a tree, and looking at it from only that holistic standpoint. I know I've heard many people over the course of the last 18 months comment on how JAN evaluates situations, and I'm hearing it again tonight. The reality is that he's taking forward this piece of information and each time that he evaluates trees, he doesn't do it every time. He really does it when we ask him and call him to do those reviews when the trees are proposed to be removed. And like for instance, if the tree is clearly dead, I'm not going to call Jan out to say, hey, is the tree dead? If it's obvious through the evidence that's being provided, then it's a pretty open and close case. Here, there was some question given the life that we were seeing with some of those limbs. Even given the thorough report that Bill had put together.

Can I continue? Okay. So the city doesn't have a designated consultant. And Jan... actually worked for Cretona in the past and has looked at all their trees, but he didn't this time, but he's been involved with Cretona. I just wanted to point that out. That's interesting to me. Does the city have a designated tree committee?

yes but no not necessarily one that's been formally identified through city council there has been one over the years that group has gone a bit lame so there has been interest from the city council standpoint to re-re-energize that but not not at this moment okay um my next question is a two-parter does the city have a list of pre-approved vetted arborists

And does the city have a consultant suspension list of people you don't think their reports are any good?

We have a list of all different types of consultants by area of expertise and we don't vet them if they want to be on our list because we can't recommend a consultant whether it's an arborist or an architect to anyone so we can we can provide them with a list though of people that want to be on the list.

Okay, and there's no list that exists that says this person, we've had trouble with this ISA certified arborist and we don't want him doing reports anymore.

No.

Okay.

No.

All right. Thank you. That's what I was going to say. That's all I have.

I just have a comment kind of based on what you were saying, Katrina, a little bit. You always have to ask the question, are we giving people the tools they need to catch what we are pitching? So we're pitching a policy that I think everybody agrees with. I don't think there's any opinion otherwise on this. But that catching piece, if I knew a vendor that was city certified or city educated or had the little sticker on it you know that tells me this person has gone through some vetting or education of something as a buyer that would certainly give me a a much higher confidence in their ability to do it and then i guess the final comment i'll add a little bit and not to make this a personal story so much but This is highly arbitrary. I had a tree removed on an emergency basis. Two certified arborists look at it. I paid and did the permit through the city and everything. The second they cut that down, one of the arborists said, well, actually that thing looked pretty healthy. And I took it down because my neighbor had written me a letter threatening to sue me if the tree fell on their house, a brand-new neighbor. And so it is a really arbitrary area here, and I think anything we can do to help citizens, and if we have somebody who's a repeat offender, let's reinforce it with the full power of what we can do here. But where the circumstances don't fit that, I'm not sure that's the right decision for us, so.

I was just curious what the yeah what this well I was cut a couple of questions I guess one is knowing how important trees are both for safety and for the aesthetic and beauty of Ojai like where where does a I mean because there's a lot of questions I think about the timeline of this now obviously it's a there's not it's a small staff I'm sure there's plenty of applications still coming in, but is there a way that these are prioritized, or how are applications prioritized? Obviously, there's an emergency path, but either way, it might be argued that a tree question where it's being claimed that maybe it's not going to fall tomorrow, but it might be a problem, that that should still maybe have more priority than I don't know, a two-story renovation of a garage or something like that as an example.

But is there a – Well, for this tree specifically, it didn't come in as an emergency situation. It wasn't an emergency application. And even in the report from Bill Mellett, it says that the – The form makes future incidents highly probable. I mean, it wasn't like this tree's gonna fall down tomorrow, you gotta get out here. If that were the case, then it would have been acted upon very quickly. There's a state requirement that we have 30 days to review an application once it comes in. Sure. And so projects come in and they're looked at real quick and then they're put in a queue. Right. And so there's a date put on them as to when we have to act.

Yeah, I mean, I agree. I felt like there was definitely some language in the report where it didn't feel like something had to happen tomorrow. I guess I was just curious, though, within the context of Ojai.

Right, so if there were other deadlines that were more imminent, then those projects would come first.

To the emergency piece, so we have had that happen before where someone has come in and said, this huge limb just fell on this tree. This tree needs to be removed immediately because it poses additional dangers. That has happened more than a handful of times. And what happens is we literally say, yes, approve it that day and move on. and we look for the arborist report after the fact. The emergency piece isn't to be taken lightly. So we want to make sure the context is understood there. So I know we're hearing emergency. None of this sounded, felt like an emergency. Obviously there's perception, and obviously whenever you're involving children, individuals that are moving in and out of the canopies of those trees, there's definitely a concern.

No, I agree. I mean, I kind of just, I guess I wanted to, just in thinking about this and thinking about what kind of precedent it sets also and how we think about it or how you guys think about it, it's kind of a question of, you know, clearly there was follow-up from the arborists, and I don't know what kind of, you know, intensity Bill was adding when he was following up on his report. But just, yeah, this is the question of whether there's ways of, or whether you guys consider different prioritizations of types of projects, I guess, as they come in.

To Mara's point, as projects come in, they go in the queue. If we were to give priority to projects simply because they asked for priority, it's not fair to the other applicants that came in earlier, right? Now, if this is considered to be an emergency, typically we're responding within a matter of a day. Sometimes what has happened is they'll document on the weekend, let us know on a Monday, and And if it's an emergency and it's been identified and we've got very critical evidence to show that, then there's absolutely no reason for us to doubt what's going on. So from a processing standpoint, just understand that These applications are reviewed as they come in, so we look at them first, and then address whether or not they are critical, or if they can be put in the queue.

And then if, before, just one second, before, so, it wasn't until basically kind of I guess let's say there was 30 you had 30 days let's say it was 30 days you looked at the application and at that point you determined oh I think we'd like to get a second opinion because you were just concerned well can you speak to why you requested the second opinion

For this particular tree we wouldn't wait until the last day for a tree for removal because likely we're going to be asking for a second opinion. Not definitely but likely. Staff has to look at it as well because again if staff whether it's through pictures or through going out and doing their own site visit determines that this tree is definitely dead. I mean there's just no way that you know there's not one green leaf on it and then we're not even going to get the peer review. So we would not wait 30 days for a tree that's being requested to be removed. But there is that 30-day review process. But as the director just said, and as I did as well, when projects come in, they're quickly evaluated. Does this need to be acted upon immediately, or can it go in queue? Where does it fit? And in queue may not mean all the way to 30 days, if there's any place in there. And so again, a tree to be removed is not going to sit for 30 days. We will be most likely, or potentially getting a peer review, and that takes time.

The last thing I'll add to this is this one did last longer than anticipated. That's true. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it should have been handled sooner or it could have been handled sooner. It took longer, unfortunately. Some of those happen. And unfortunately, with this one, through an appeal process and everything that went on with it, it took longer. That's not what our intention is. That's not kind of the policy by which we operate.

I just wanted to mention something, and this is ancient history I guess now. There are policy changes in how each director handles tree permits, but back in the day when a hazardous tree permit came in, with a report written by an ISA certified arborist, we would do them over the counter. Because the assumption is if it's hazardous, it's dangerous and we need to act on it now. And if it's an ISA certified written report that says it's hazardous, It's emergency. We did it that day, you know, so That's just been a change where you're doing the 30-day review and having a third party come in That's different and way more conservative and maybe you know, there was too many losses that people Didn't you know like the decision of that hazardous tree coming down but as you know we're sitting here none of us are isa certified including staff so i think we have to rely on the reports we get from the professionals so that's where i'm kind of my point of reference i guess is um you know if it's hazardous I read the report, the pictures look like it's leaning and all the things that Bill said it was, I would say yeah, that's pretty hazardous, the fact that it had limbs coming down. I would say let's, you know, let's get rid of the hazard. So that's my point of reference, so I'm kind of, I would have some other suggestions for how we move forward.

Okay, Bruce, do you have any questions?

No, I guess I don't really have a question.

Okay. While we are dealing with multiple issues, the response time by the city could and ideally would have been faster. There's the misunderstanding between the arborist and the contractor No fault of Crotona, but it was their problem that they did not communicate appropriately with each other. And we have different views from two respected arborists in town. So what are we going to do? It is my opinion $58,000 feels like a lot of money, just me. But I think that reasonable people here can and should be able to come to an agreement to mitigate this problem and I would want to see all parties involved be responsible in that mitigation effort. I really was surprised at your question about the value of the hazardous tree. It had not occurred to me that that tree wasn't worth $28,000. I've just believed the arborist, but I think you point out that it was probably only a percentage of $28,000. If this tree were so hazardous, it should have been roped off. Should have been dealt with. appropriately by the people responsible. So that's kind of a summary of what I've heard tonight. And what I'd like to know is what can we do as a commission to change this outcome? I don't really think that waiving the whole penalty is appropriate. This was an unpermitted act. On the other hand, it was unintentional, so there should be some way that we can come to an agreement on a less difficult resolve. Katrina?

going to help me here well I I agree with you that I think the property owner is still responsible for that removal it was done without a permit and as a planner I know that's very annoying when that happens when you know you know there's a permit in place or in process and people go ahead and do what they're going to do. I know from what you're saying, the property owner didn't know about it, but they're still responsible for that. What I'm recommending is that we have the penalty for the removal without a permit by doubling the standard permit fee. I think that is reasonable because the tree was cut down without a permit in hand. However, I think that we have an ISA report from an ISA certified arborist that says it was hazardous. So I am recommending that we don't apply the fee for the mitigation. How would you feel about

Requiring additional trees to be planted to offset the loss of this oak.

Well, I think we as a city should promote the planting of trees. We have a mature forest here, but we have no young trees coming in. And partly that's because a lot of people are afraid to plant any trees because they don't want to have to deal with this in the future.

This is a very good point. I mean, I would not plant an oak at this point simply because I wouldn't want the future problem. But we could ask them to plant another kind of tree.

Yeah, we're not encouraging the planting of oaks, which is just crazy. And that's because we're being too punitive at this point, and especially for an applicant who has actually come in with an application and an arborist report. It said it was hazardous. The ordinance says very clearly that when it's hazardous, the permit fee is waived and there's no mitigation. So I'm saying we waive the mitigation requirement because it's a hazardous tree and the ordinance says the tree permit is waived and the mitigation is waived. However, I would say Cretona has a lot of property We should encourage them to plant acorns, saplings, young trees as much as they can to offset this. But I would make that a recommendation but not a requirement.

I think that there's some flexibility here in the term hazardous. It seems like the two... arborists had different opinions about what that definition is.

Yeah, there's no definition for hazardous. So really, we lean on the ISA certified arborist for that.

Right. And if the arborist, if Mr. Miller, Mallet had considered it, well, I've asked him about this and there is this range of hazard and apparently he did not think that this tree was gonna fall over tomorrow. So I personally would prefer to see a requirement for mitigation purposes, yes?

something that the applicant was surprised about before the meeting we just touched base before the meeting tonight and it doesn't seem to be coming up here so I just want to make sure that you're clear on page two of two attachment D that's the the letter that went to the applicant regarding the violation and the penalty it states that the community development director has determined that the property owner shall do the following There are two things. And so it's not just the, I don't mean just like it's a small thing, but it's not just the $56,824. It's also to provide a replacement oak of equivalent size to the removed tree or replant at least two trees of the same tree that was removed. So it's to do that and pay that penalty. And so Commissioner Rice-Schmidt was speaking to the evaluation of the tree times two to eliminate that, but to have them pay the permit application fee times two. But the number one here on this page just wasn't discussed, and so I just wanted to make sure that it was at your attention.

Does that make sense?

I think that's kind of maybe unknowingly that's a little bit what Judy was saying also that I think some level of replanting would be desirable. So maybe now that you realize that.

I also heard the applicant open to that. So I think we can come to some. agreement about how to conclude this and whether that should be all of us in this room working it out or whether we have a smaller group work with staff.

Well regardless we have a resolution this evening. And so we'll be coming back with with a resolution that determines what it is that ultimately gets determined. The commission can do it this evening. You can also direct staff to work with the applicant. It's up to you.

Maybe like maybe the recommendation you're looking for is to remove from number one remove provider replacement oak of equivalent size. I mean that would also be a very large investment. And hard to locate. Possible. But maybe just the replanting of at least two trees of the same genus. That seems to be a little more ambiguous as far as, like, what that is. So maybe that would be something you guys, I guess, could figure out afterwards. remove or we could I guess dictate it and then remove the potentially remove the the ISA appraisal value and so kind of cutting out half of one in cutting out half of two it is we could propose that as being the the amendment to you could just do that and right this evening as opposed to having staff work with the applicant it's it's really your purview yeah this would be good to get it resolved

I just want to say, yeah, it's really expensive to have a replacement oak, to your point. And even two trees of the same size to replace that diameter is going to be very expensive. It's going to be a big box. Those are two big box trees. But there is provision in the ordinance to allow for multiple trees, more than two, you can have five trees as long as they are at least two inches in diameter. And those wouldn't be too crazy expensive.

And I would like to change it from being of the same genus because I think that this oak tree thing is getting to be an issue.

Well, if we're requiring a replacement, wouldn't we require the oak?

I think that there's reasons the oak is here, as annoying as our policies might be around them. So I don't know. Well, hang on a minute.

Planting a tree for stability and we have an expert in house here I'm sure who could testify this planting for stability typically happens in younger trees planting a large tree actually nearly guarantees the tree is gonna fall over because the roots are developed and they're not developed in the way that a young tree being planted would develop and So we're a little bit wrong-headed with some of the guidance, but I actually think that, Lucas, you said something really important. I'm paraphrasing, but you said there's really not a clear definition on what's hazardous or not. Now, I look at it, and I think any tree that is engaged in power lines in Ojai, to me, is a hazard. I love your comment about this should have been cordoned off. There should have been indicators for people to not go there. around this tree, that's a great point. But it seems like the right thing to do here is to require the group to get back together and come up with a solution that is a sustainable solution. I'm not sure that it's within our ability to tell people what to do on their land. But that seems to be the best way to move forward here.

That's too bad. I was just going to ask for his advice on the size of a tree.

He may be just outside talking and coming back.

Talking. Okay.

well commissioner stewart's right i mean the the smaller the tree and you know starting from acorns is the best right then saplings then moving up as they but yeah the younger they are the better and you can do multiple saplings you know and they grow pretty quickly um i will just say this given that crotone has been there for over 100 years i've already had this discussion so i

Would you, come on.

No, no, that's, we're waiting for the mic. I had this conversation with Cortona because we knew this was a very possible remedy and we wanted to support it. They have lots of land. They'd be more than happy to put in, I did not talk about a number, but they would prefer, I believe, saplings. They're cheaper and easier to start. That's usually a problem because you don't own the land long enough to have a, Oak tree, which it would probably be, we were assuming, go to full fruition. But given that they're not planning on going anywhere for another 100 years, there'd be no problem for them to gladly take a sapling, maintain it till maturity, and have it as a tree on their property. And there's more than ample space to be able to do that. I need to finalize what we would be talking about with them. But I know in principle, they're more than happy to do that. And I had that preliminary conversation with them.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Blatz. Mr. Miller, would you come back up and talk to us about the size of a tree that would be more than a tiny.

Appropriate to replace it with?

Yeah, an appropriate, yeah, not so big that it's going to become hazardous in and of itself by transplanting, but big enough to not be just a seed in the ground.

So I'm also a landscape architect, so I plant a lot of trees and have been a landscape contractor for 20 years also. So smaller is usually better. A smaller tree will pass a larger tree any time you plant them. If you plant a large box tree and a smaller one next to it, the smaller one will pass the big one. So for trees, for the future of the tree, a 15-gallon, 5 or 15-gallon to me is appropriate.

Okay.

Cost-wise, it's a lot less, so you could plant more if you went 5 or 15.

Could you also address the issue of replacing an oak with an oak versus the possibility of a variety of kinds of trees, whether that's a good thing to do or not?

That's a tough question because it's the right tree in the right location. In our native oaks here, Coast Live Oaks, have thrived. And it's kind of interesting, when we were in the drought, there was a period where I was thinking, our coast live oak might not be our native tree anymore. We were losing so many of them. towards the end of the drought and the fire and I was like I don't know if this is the appropriate tree to be replanting but now we've had a few years of decent rain and those trees have recovered and they're doing fine so I think I probably would replace it with another oak especially in this location they have the space came from an area where we had Dutch elm disease go through and

And because we had all elm trees, it just took out the whole town. So I guess that's why I'm prone to wish for a variety of trees, but.

I mean, diversity is good because we don't have that monoculture where it's something, a disease can take out a whole forest. But I think this particular location, because of the space, I think oaks are appropriate.

That oak trees would be your advice.

But we wouldn't put them in the exact same location. We'd put them elsewhere on the property, right?

Yes, most likely. Yeah.

Yeah. Just want to make that clear. Don't want it in the same spot.

Thank you. Thank you. Are we getting ready to bring this together and wrap it with a motion?

Yeah.

May I suggest that it sounded like we were headed toward a solution here if we could bring it back to a resolution that the staff could work on and then bring it back.

Okay, so the process would be that we would dictate what we would like in the resolution and then you would bring it back at our next meeting in that format.

That's correct. Okay, good.

Well, that would move things along. we need to address the fee the tree permit fee we need to address what we're going to do about the fine and we need to address what we would want them to do in lieu of that fine the number of trees in 15 What were those 15 gallon boxes?

So we're saying that we are, I mean, with the way this is kind of outlined, we're willing to uphold the elements of the director's decision for the tree permit application fee.

I would say it's a modification to the original decision.

Don't worry so much about the resolution.

What we'll do, depending on what you decide tonight, we can bring back a fresh resolution if you're giving guidance to have that conversation with Crotona. terms of the potential number and size and potential location obviously I agree with everyone here and I think even Grittona agrees it doesn't go in the same spot How much does an oak tree in a 15 gallon box cost?

You've got to come up because there's an audience online waiting with baited breath for your answer.

I'm going to say it's about $200 to $250 planted in the ground if you were to have a contractor come and plant it in the ground.

Okay. So thank you. That helps.

Off the truck? If you're buying it from the store or buying it in bulk, what's that cost?

15 yell and now I think they're about $100.

Presumably Elena is going to have someone plant that for her. So let's operate on the 250 figure.

Okay, is anyone ready to do a motion on this to... Let's talk about real quick what the motion would look like so that we're precise. My understanding of the...

The revision of the resolution. Yeah.

Yeah, and tune me in here any way that's needed. But my understanding of kind of where we're at is that we are prepared to introduce a motion to direct the parties as it is to go back to the table and come back to us with a new resolution that takes into account the dialogue here, that has some resolution of the fees in some way, whatever that might be. We could either direct some of the specifics of that or leave that to the group to solve. My personal preference would be the group, but that appears, I'm hovering around the motion, but that appears to be where we're at.

I think the staff comes back with the resolution.

We have to direct them to come back with a new resolution, yes.

Yeah, so I'll make a motion.

Okay.

So my motion would be adopt a resolution to grant the appeal to deny the community development director's decision to require penalties as specified in the conditions of approval for tree permit 2107956 with the condition that the applicant must plant a 15 gallon oak tree. I would say multiple trees and double pay the fee what is a 15 gallon what's the diameter what's the caliper of the trunk roughly an inch well it has to be a minimum of two inches per code

24 inch box okay we could just put this to bed tonight by telling Katrina would you so that's better Katrina would you be willing to add under the supervision of a licensed arborist to those plantings yes okay yeah

So then do I just choose a number? I don't think we're going to choose 30 because that seems like a lot.

Well, I'm just recommending one. No, I'm not. It was a hazardous tree.

I feel like one is a bit of a token because I think.

It is a token, but it will grow into a big tree. Of course. I mean, the bottom line is we have an ISA certified report that says it was hazardous and our code says when you have a hazardous tree, the fees are waived and there's no mitigation. That's what the code says. So the real violation was that they cut the tree down before there was an issued permit.

I think we can come to a medium on this. Would you like to suggest a number or a medium?

Well, I'm a little bit reluctant because, you know, 100 acres, you might have four or five different planting zones that have, you know, different impacts and so on. So, you know, to me, leaving the box open a little bit to say to them, you know, more than one but, you know, not more than a rational number, you know, that gives us the ability to have them also hopefully bring it into a larger landscaping plan. Somebody made the comment of, you know, with 100 acres, you could add a lot. That gives them a minute to thoughtfully contemplate where they might place a number of trees. And so.

And if I heard Elena correctly, they're already making plans for this. So it's probably not a big stretch. Multiple, can we use the word multiple in your motion?

No. No, okay. That doesn't give direction

to them, no, then that multiple would be then something that staff would have to work out with Cratona. I was trying to avoid having staff figure this out.

You do multiple and it's got us having a conversation and writing something back and potentially having a very similar conversation. You put a number to it and it lessens that. So it's one. Please don't say multiple because then I'm going back and having that conversation.

Okay, if we're trying to avoid that. Let's give a number. Let's give a box size. Let's give a number. Let's give a tree genus. Let's...

I don't understand what's in the code that's two?

If it could help, I might be able to make a recommendation. Because whatever you guys do decide is going to be contingent on Katrona being able to do it and complete it. So that, obviously, we don't want to appeal this to the city council. But we're kind of negotiating here live. But maybe I could help. I think that if we need two-inch trees, first of all, I want to say... had the city not had this kind of weird requirement of you have to get an arborist report but we're going to do one anyway and yours doesn't count anymore the permit would have been approved it would have improved pretty much immediately because everything was done so this delay and the tree getting cut down before the permit was there is really a reaction to this secondary independent review that wasn't done for exactly 30 days after the applicant was in. So there's a very strong argument that they shouldn't have to do anything, because the code says if it was a hazard, and it mitigated. But that being said.

Have you got a proposal?

Yes, but I want to make that clear. We could do, I think, maybe two two-inch trees. then the only thing I'd say is that is there any permit fee that waive the permit fee we'll do another tree we'd much rather spend the money on trying to do trees then we would pay in you guys but whatever you guys want depending on what you want as far as a permit fee then that should be proportional to how many trees we can try and put in But I was just talking to Elena. It's not as easy as I thought. She's had a few problems with them trying to do oaks in other places, but I think we could do that. But if we're starting to line up more than that, then you're starting to get worried about legitimate upkeep, long-term care. I mean, the truth is that once you start the tree, the long-term ultimate cost of contributing to the growth and maturity of that tree is going to be significantly more money than even the $60,000 for a penalty. But they get the benefit of that over a very long term.

Does this tree, Mr. Mallard, have to be irrigated with a system?

His answer was yes.

Okay, so we're not just talking about planting a tree, we're talking about putting in an irrigation addition to whatever they have.

Yeah, saplings and younger trees take a lot more care to get going, but even if you put in a full-grown one, it takes a lot of work and that's incredibly expensive to do. the transportation plus the installation on a fully grown or much more mature tree is way above what they could possibly do. I'm thinking two trees might be the right answer. There's twice as many as you had and maybe we don't worry about the permit fee and the money just goes to putting in and taking care of two new trees.

I would like to see that permit fee paid because there was a violation and the staff has spent a lot of time.

Can I respond to both of these pieces? I appreciate your opinion on some of those pieces. I don't necessarily agree with some of those pieces, Ryan. But I see where you're coming from, and I get the overall ambience of it. To the fee piece, I can tell you right now, that's just gonna go into our tree fund, and then it's gonna go to basically purchase a tree somewhere else, either on our public right-of-way or somewhere in the park. So whether it gets planted here or somewhere else on city property, that will more than likely be an oak of some Quercus lobata, of some variety within the city. The two-piece does seem to make a lot of sense. I'm not sure, staff is constantly, the fee structure that we have currently is way undervalued in terms of what we do behind the scenes. So the five, I mean, you could say the same thing about any other application that comes in. So I don't know that that's necessarily justified from that standpoint either, so. Just know that we're constantly working to try to find solutions to these pieces. This happened to go on appeal. I think what we are finding out here is the provisions that exist within the code from an enforcement standpoint seem to be pretty heavy-handed. Both of those pieces were applied. No one's really asked why both of them were applied. Both of them were applied for the simple fact that the tree was removed and a permit hadn't been issued, period. That's why both were applied. No harm, no foul. We're finding solutions to that, right, to the contrary. Also learning that an assessed value double that is a ridiculous amount of money to be paying. That's ridiculous. Completely irrational for Cretona, for any property owner within the city to be paid. Guaranteed, it's almost deterring people from wanting to put in oak trees. I mean, I'm hearing it from you. Sure. anybody that's out there is is not interested in doing that knowing the potential fines and Impacts that it has to those individuals wallets. So I'm not necessarily married to it. I was simply applying What the provisions within the code state?

Okay Thank you. We have a motion on the floor Could you help us with that motion, please John I

because we've all forgotten it.

The motion that I have is modification to the original decision to direct staff to adopt resolution focused on adopt and revise the resolution to modify the original decision with the condition that the applicant must plant two trees and state the genus and the size stating the

So it would be a Quercus laboda.

No, no, Agrifolia.

Well, okay, Quercus Agrifolia, so it would basically be the same.

In a 24 inch box of that size.

One 24 inch box or two.

Okay, the motion was one originally.

One 24 inch box or. Actually it was a one 15 gallon. Hold on, hold on, let's not talk over each other here. One 24 inch box or two 15 gallon.

What I want to do is get that original motion specific so that we can amend it The original motion was for one 15 gallon Somebody want to second that motion

Sorry, it was one 15 gallon, but it was also double the payment, the permit fee, and this was, and specifically denying the director's decision, and then those conditions. One tree, 15 gallon, double the permit fee.

Okay, that motion does not have a second, so it fails. We would now entertain another motion.

Oh, this is getting interesting.

OK, if no one's going to make a motion, I will. I move that we accept the resolution with changes to accept the doubling of the permit fee. and waiving the fine to be mitigated by two 24 inch gallon 24 gallon box trees of the appropriate oak tree genus to be determined by the arborist, depending on where they put them. I assume you would have recommendations for the specific kind of oak. Does that? I'd second that. Okay. Further discussion?

I think we're ready for a roll call. Murphy? Yes. Chesley?

Yes.

Reischmidt?

No.

Hanson? Yes. Stewart?

Yes.

OK. Motion passes. Thank you, Katrona, for your stewardship of that land. And I hope this has been a satisfactory resolution for all of you. Going on to our agenda, our next discussion item. the design review permit conditional use permit zone change and so on for the 107 Ventura LLC Assume we have a staff report for that Yes, hold on I'm gonna pull up a PowerPoint here No, it's quite comfortable here Okay

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Lucas Seibert, Community Development Director here for the City of Ojai. The item you have before you tonight is a review of, which I want to preface it with there's no decision being made tonight, for 107 North Ventura Street. It's for a proposed health spa and wellness center. You can see the aerial here. It's at the corner of Metellaha and Ventura Street. So what I'm going to do here tonight is I'm going to set the table for kind of the background and where this project has gone over the years. And then I'm going to invite the applicant to come up. And I believe the... architect is here as well tonight, to speak on some of the details that you're going to be having an opportunity to see and discuss tonight. So the site was previously home to the World University of America, including a bookstore, chapel, offices, and classrooms mainly used for the administration while courses were delivered online. That also required a conditional use permit that was afforded in 2006. The site itself is a little over half an acre in size. It includes both the office area that you're seeing here as well as a residential piece of property or home directly to the west. In 2018, really 2017, leading into 2018, World University shut their doors. And then that began the process of trying to figure out what use is appropriate here. The site itself is identified from a zoning standpoint as PL, as a land use designation of P. Both of those are consistent from the standpoint of a land use standpoint. The interesting thing about what we're looking at here is the spa and wellness center requires a number of applications to go forward. That was prefaced and discussed before this body through a concept review in 2024 October, I believe. And at that time, it was identified that a Zone change was required, a general plan amendment was required, a conditional use permit was required, a design review permit was required. They have applied for all four of those, and that's what you're seeing here tonight. The proposal that they're bringing forward requires, based on the use that they're wanting to do there, as a use that complements Hotel La Roblard across the street, can really only be afforded through the VMU, which is what they're proposing. If you look at the uses or the zones surrounding it to the east, you have C1. To the south, you have C1. To the west is PL. To the north is VMU. Kind of interesting. If you were to rezone at C1, they couldn't do the spa and wellness. It's not allowed use in the C1. community center is, but the community center itself is not necessarily conducive to what their use is that they're wanting to do moving forward. So it's kind of an interesting quagmire of sorts. We talked about this in 2024, but I wanted to bring it forward again as a part of the discussion in the staff report and just mention that again. It's been discussed and kind of gone around and around in terms of what kind of makes the most sense here from what they're wanting to do. So the CUP is required because in the VMU a spa and wellness center requires a conditional use permit. So I'll pause there, and I'll ask Jeremy and Joanne Relaitis to come up and speak about the project a little bit more.

I also have Ginger Anderson, our project planner on Zoom. If you could let her in, please. Did you hear that?

Yep.

OK, thank you. Ginger, are you there? Okay, good evening chair, commissioners. My name is Jeremy McBride. I'm the property owner representative and applicant for 107 Ventura. Thank you for the opportunity to reintroduce this project to you tonight. I have some other members of our project team. He was on our hotel project. Ginger Anderson whose land use and project planner also had been working with us alongside us on the project for a long time. I'd like to start, as Lucas mentioned, with the site itself. Some of you know this building very well. It sits at 107 North Ventura, right in the corner of Ventura and Matilha, directly across the street from the Hotel El Roblar. It was built in 1951, and over the last 75 years, it's served this community in a lot of different ways. It started as the first Baptist church here, then became Ojai City Home Police Department, and was the later home of World University from 1976 to 2017. It sat vacant and inactive for the better part of nine years, and we think it's time to bring it back as a contributing asset to the community. Right across the street, the Hotel El Roblar has quite a history of its own. For decades, it was home to the Oaks at Ojai. The wellness spa Sheila Clough and her family ran for over 40 years. People still in the community in related areas talk about it today. As we renovated the hotel and reopened last year, we wanted to do something that honors her and that passion that she had for health and wellness in the Valley. And we really wanted this project to be something complimentary to the hotel. As you might know, Kathy Clough, the daughter of Sheila, has agreed to be part of this project in a consulting way, advisory way, which means a lot to us to honor the history that precedes us and to keep that spirit going. The project itself, what are we actually proposing? This is an adaptive reuse of an existing building. It's 8,500 square feet. We're not adding any new square footage. Inside, we're planning eight treatment rooms, a gym, sauna, steam room, normal wellness amenities, a lobby, and a small retail shop. On the outside, the changes are quite minor. We'll re-roof, remove some of the non-original mechanic screens from the roof, add some new fencing, and repaint. The paved parking area at the rear will become a landscape courtyard with a garden with some water services. To make this happen, we're requesting a general plan amendment, a zone change, along with a conditional use permit. And I want to be clear, the existing residence at 107 West Matillaha will not be touched at all. No changes are proposed there. As Lucas mentioned, we came before this council 18 months ago and brought this same concept to the commission. And we left that meeting with a broad encouraging support. Five commissioners spoke of how well this complements the hotel in this community. The one concern that came up was about pedestrians crossing Ventura Street between the hotel and the wellness center. And we kept working with staff on that ever since. Tonight we're back with the full picture, historic resources report, traffic and parking analysis, and refined plans to keep this project moving forward. Because this building has history, we commissioned an independent historic resources report from architectural resources group that was conducted by the city. Their conclusion is that our project fully complies with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. We're preserving every character defining feature, the courtyard, the U-shaped plan, the flat roof, the concrete blocks, the wood windows and doors. Their finding is that this project would have no significant impact to historical resources under CEQA. We also had an independent traffic study done by the associated transportation engineers. It found that this project will generate 87 daily trips. It's actually 35 fewer trips than the building generated under its previous uses. It's well under the state's screening threshold, and it's a significant, it's a less than significant traffic and VMT impact. On parking, we'll retain all existing onsite spaces, and we'll also share access to the Hotel El Robles parking supply, which already accounts for this use its own parking study, which means we already have adequate parking for our use today. We don't anticipate more parking required. Beyond the project itself, we think this brings real benefits to Ojai and the community. It reactivates a building that's been sitting vacant with no community use in the heart of downtown. It increases drought-tolerant native landscape, in some cases no oak trees, and reduces paved surface. It creates new local jobs, generates transient occupancy tax, sales tax, and property tax for the revenue for the city. I must say, I just learned this today, since we opened the hotel in basically a year ago, almost today, which is pretty amazing, we generated close to $1.5 million for the city of Ojai. That's been paid. And we project to have another $350,000 by the end of this year, so close to $2 million since we've opened. That's not including sales tax or any activation for the local businesses around us. It's also clear how, I should actually share this also, We had this study done by a real estate consulting firm that specializes in hospitality real estate. And we were trying to understand, which is very hard, the ancillary benefit for our own business case to determine if a spa was complimentary as a use for our guest and how much incremental value is created for our property. According to Joan Ling LaSalle's hospitality group, which is the leading hospitality investment advisory firm, our kind of scale hotels with a spa and fitness amenity generate a 25% premium to those that do not. So if you think about on a baseline, this sort of halo effect of an ancillary use for our guest and for our hotel and our community, there's an additional 25% benefit on a baseline. That's not to include the community benefit, which will be offered to everybody as well. This project retains its existing residential use. There's no additional impact of construction. We're keeping the existing core. And we've heard the commission's prior concerns about pedestrian crossing and safe access, which we're constantly navigating every single day with being in a very busy corridor in downtown. tonight this concept and discussion item we're not asking for a decision we're here to get your feedback many of you haven't been to the actual site which I encourage you to come before the meeting on August 5th I'd happy to happily take you around and explore the site and we're looking forward to a formal public hearing in August thank you for your time I'm happy to answer any questions

How many people do you anticipate working at the spa?

Great question. The real services that we imagine being used, it's gonna be pretty lean. We will have a gift shop retail center that's also gonna function as check-in, one person. We'll have eight treatment rooms that will have staff rotating around. Our existing grounds team, landscaping team, housekeeping team will be in service of using that space, so they'll be cleaning and responsible for taking care of it. administrative positions, finance, sales will all exist as well, existing positions. So there's a lot of synergies with the actual employee use.

So the parking, you're losing the parking spaces for the meditation garden, right? Yes. But you will retain eight. Yes. Is eight sufficient to cover your employees?

Yes.

Okay, and when local people come to use it on off-peak, where will they park?

They'll have parking available to them if they'd like through the hotel itself, the primary location. There's plenty of parking available, especially during those off-peak times. There'll be eight direct spots they can access publicly if they wanted to park on site of the spa and wellness center.

Where do you encourage your employees, the hotel employees, to park?

We have kind of a designated area that I don't know the exact address, but it's where the retail shop is and highly likely behind there. We have a location back there. That's our kind of dedicated staff area. We also have a blue store. There you go. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Let me take a step back. There's a lot of hype around the parking situation for the hotel, and Judy, you were part of that. We remember. I do remember that. And it's amazing how it's working right now, actually. You know, we started with an outside company managing it because we were racing to get open. We've taken it in-house since, given jobs to our existing staff, created a lot more opportunity for them.

and I never have heard a traffic or parking issue brought to my attention since we've opened our doors so basically the eight parking spaces would be available to the local clients that you would serve yes okay do you have any other questions for him

So the house that's there, is that a caretaker's residence or is that just a separate rental?

We had opening hotels very challenging, especially here when we're adding in a lot of new jobs and looking for specialized positions. So we had the house originally used for staff housing. We still have that as staff housing. We have a lot of transitional employment, temporary employment, contractors coming in for very specialized things. So right now our intention is to keep it for staff housing for internal use.

You probably want to keep your options open to rent it out separately.

Yes.

The trash area is going to be replaced by the meditation garden as I look at your plans. Is that accurate?

That's correct.

Where are you moving the trash to?

Good question. Joe's here too. I'll give you my version. Joe has a more technical version. But we've worked out a sort of plan with Harrison, EJ Harrison, which contracts our garbage for the hotel to work out an operating structure. But how it sort of works today is we sort of have two big kind of deliveries which relate to garbage and linen and towels that are kind of currently arranged and picked up at the site. So our staff... At the site meaning the hotel? At the current location of 107 Ventura. Okay. And from there, they're brought into the hotel through a couple of side entrances, staff entrances. So what we've kind of worked out is, and it's going to be a continual learning as we study the rhythm and the impact to guests, because there's the trash pickup. There's also just the infrequency and timing of when deliveries come. So our staff is moving basically between the spaces at all times and garbage will sometimes be taken from 107 Ventura and brought to our garbage location at the hotel, which is on the Signal Street side. And that seems to be working out very well. So I imagine as we're bringing in linens from 107 to the hotel, which is our drop-off location at the moment, I could totally conceive that trash could also be brought over. But we have worked that out as a pickup location with Harrison at the moment, and they seem to be okay with it.

What fixes have you come up with for the pedestrian movement of your clients between the two buildings?

I'd love to propose closing that road. That would be a pretty amazing idea. Other than that, I think we're gonna have to think about that. I think one natural way, if you know the location, and I can point it out to you if you wanna come by, is there's sort of a guest exit that exists on the Ventura Street side. And that's sort of in the middle of the road between Ohio Avenue and Matilha. Right. I think I could imagine a pedestrian walkway there potentially. Or the navigation would go to the Matilha side which is less busy. And that would be the kind of flow of traffic to the guests. But you know I've been treading that area for the last seven years and it's very quiet.

I looked at it today and I thought your guests are going to come out that door. Yeah.

across the street whether we have a crosswalk there or not I'd love a crosswalk personally I think it'd be amazing you know I'm just writing the city about you know we're what we see on signal Street signal streets very dangerous we have a lot of people going out a lot of pedestrians walking out in front of a parking lot exit basically. So we're vigilant, very concerned about our surrounding building and how guest and staff interactions relate to that. We're pretty serious about it for guest safety, for pedestrian safety, community safety. And we're still learning. But I imagine if there was an opportunity, I'd love to create a little walking path there. It would make sense. If not, we'll do our best to guide people with more wayfinding. I think way finding will go a long way. Also if you think about coming from that guest side, what you see across the street, if we could also rearrange the entry in a way that speaks to a natural flow of entry versus just going to an open space.

I'm not sure I understand what you're envisioning.

Well, maybe the entry of the 107 Ventura for the guest would be more oriented towards the crosswalk and not be directly in front of you. I think that's part of the problem is it looks very open.

The crosswalk at the corner?

Correct.

Okay.

So open to explore those ideas with you but we haven't gotten to that level of detail but I imagine crosswalks existing with some additional way finding plus guest education and the way the entry of the building for the guests is where the signage is. Right now it's a nondescript building. You don't really know how to approach it.

Do you have any questions for Jeremy?

You know, just a couple of thoughts. I mean, a lot of the, so we're basically, you know, we're taking a village mix use and down zoning a little bit to allow it to be for private use. And I think in general I'm okay with that. And I would say my broad orientation is, is that you guys have created something very special in town that has been what I would call a deposit in the Bank of Ojai credibility. So you've done a good thing, I think. And looking at the local citizenry, a lot of people drive out of town, work Monday through Friday, whatever, they come back on Saturday, no ability to use this. I would just ask that there be some consideration one or two slots or some sort of program where the locals can get engaged on the weekends because a lot of them, that's their only time around. And then you have a lot of second home, third home owners who are up here only for the weekends as well and I think that's good.

you know a couple of comments on the walkway piece go ahead I'm just we're gonna have a discussion time among ourselves to give him feedback this is just questions in case we need that those answers for just

Yeah and I'm just you know making a comment about the walkway people will go where their organic eye line is you know and so with the existing entries and exits you have there I think you can do a lot of stuff but when people come up from wherever and they visit town they follow their eye line for sure and there are a lot of people crossing the middle of the road there so.

Okay, did you say your architect was here and ready to discuss also?

And Ginger's on the line, too, if you have any questions for her. I'm available if you need me. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Joe. I'm just here to answer any questions that you may have. Regarding the trash, actually the use doesn't generate that much trash. So the idea is just to use the existing facility on Signal Street. There's going to be so much moving back and forth that, you know, supplementing the trash movement with linens and towels and whatnot is not going to be an issue. It's a great repurpose of an existing building. The proposed project is fairly modest. Most of the work is going to be on the inside except for the outdoor amenities. Most of the existing windows and doors will remain. Some of the newer doors that aren't wood will be replaced just to have a cohesive design.

Is the fence going only on the west side?

There's a fence on the west side and there's a slight little opening between that little square room where there's another fence to create a private indoor courtyard there. And the entrance would be on the northwest corner.

Another interior fence, is that what you said? Yeah, show us.

oh okay oh there is there is a fence across the courtyard so when when a person comes across there they're gonna migrate north to get into the building so the fence is shown on the elevations Joe I've also got a floor plan and elevations if you want to speak to those I'm sure if you want to flip through so green area this is kind of color-coded green areas are back house purple is like a gym area and check-in then there's also the lobby and then the brownish color are the locker rooms and then the orange color are the treatment rooms what is the back of house just office staff, support employees. You can see here the fencing on the east side and the slight fencing on the north side. And then there's an interior courtyard. Most of the interior, a lot of the interior walls are CMU, so we're gonna retain most of those to avoid structural revisions. There's a central corridor that exists and then that will connect you to the outdoor amenities on the west side.

Can you just walk us through the entry sequence? I think I'm not quite understanding it yet.

So the entry would come in from the north side and come in for the gymnast.

I see. Okay. Got it. I thought you'd come in through the lobby.

No? Well, the check-in.

There's a check-in area right there.

It's kind of all one big room.

You might go, would you, would they go through that gated area on the north side between the back of house? No, no. That's, okay.

There's already, I mean, if you look at, if you go to the elevations, you can already see there's a door with a canopy over it. Yeah. That kind of defines, it's more of an entry element. It's kind of the most obvious entry element on the building, so. And that's that's right here. Entry canopy over it. And then there's a sidewalk there that connects to that entrance and it's all accessible. It was part of I think the last developer did some improvements in the landscape. Landscaping is pretty robust already mostly drought tolerant. We'll be enhancing that. And so yeah.

So you don't really walk through the courtyard that you see right now from?

No. That would be all closed off.

Why would it be closed off? Why are you promoting that?

It's just a private, it's a wellness center. People will be out there getting treatment possibly, using that space for solitary meditation or whatever and having that exposed to the public isn't really kind of condone that use.

There is an outdoor treatment center next to the retail. I when I read through this I was expecting people were coming in through that courtyard into the lobby so I am upside down here Well the site plan is showing all the exit possibilities that was a requirement from staff

We submitted the drawings, but go ahead.

Just going to add, one thing we're really evaluating in the plan is staffing consideration. So if we have a retail area shown on the plan kind of where it is now, that might also be a great check-in location so we can kind of reduce having multiple people checking people in and having different stations. So I think it's a little flexible where the actual arrival experience might be at the moment.

Sounds to me like You're going to be having to determine that based on how these people walk across the street from the hotel. If you bring them in through the retail, you're putting them into the middle of the busiest

area right I think that's why they're proposing to bring it from the north side through the gym I mean whatever we think about the interior organization of it by having that be the entrance it's gonna force people up to Matilla walk across street most of the you know parking is on the north side yeah right yeah most of the access to the sidewalk that gets you to the entrance is on the north side so

And it promotes people using the actual existing crosswalk to have the entrance on the north side If I keep the courtyard open they're naturally going to go that way and then it avoids reinforcing the proper Path to use the crosswalk and go at the corner of the intersection on the north side.

So that's all it would be nice if the Courtyard could be at least visually Available to the community because it sounds like it will be beautiful your folks doing meditation have a great spa area over on the west side you've got a place to do your outdoor therapy and this whole huge courtyard yeah I know you're gonna make it beautiful and we would like to share that when we walk by maybe a solution other than a fence might be what you're asking for to some degree

As demonstrated with the hotel, I think we want this to be a community use space. We don't want it to just be for hotel guests. We can't survive having a business in this town just for hotel guests. So we have limitations that are real that pertain to conditions of how much capacity we have for people to travel, but we are going to be very open and flexible as much as we can. But as you can see now, even the front courtyard, We have planters there. We might just keep – I mean, there might be a version of that where you can also see through and access. So I don't think we're so – we want a barrier for security purposes mainly, especially at nighttime. But we are very, very flexible with having the space be very accessible and open to people walking, especially that corner.

I would hate to see a six-foot wood fence there.

I just think that would be – I don't think that's keeping with what we've done. I think it's just more – some sort of protection I think we would want to have there considering the areas of that would be used for a certain kind of experience but but yeah we're on the same page good so we don't we don't really have a landscape plan no so it's hard to comment on

The hotel has gorgeous landscaping. I'm sure they're going to do an equally good job.

We don't have anything to respond to is what my point is.

We just showed some conceptual plant imagery. A lot of the landscaping is already established and a lot of that will stay but get enhanced. There will obviously be all new landscaping in the outdoor spa area. We still need to come up with a landscape plan.

Yeah, this one is kind of interesting because they're looking to operate the landscaping that was already pre, already went through a process several years ago. But you're right, the big difference is that the activating of that kind of spa space that you're seeing there, the removal of those parking spaces and the trash enclosure. and activating that space and kind of closing it off and what that kind of looks like and starts to feel like, right? Yeah. Who's the, remind me, who is the landscape architect that's working on this?

Kurt is actually, he's here tonight. We kind of talked about this, Lucas, in terms of having this sort of condition later as we're working through these steps because some of those changes and the uses of those changes impact the planting plan. So I think to your point, we'll have a pallet that's similar to the hotel, of course, keeping that connection, keeping the existing plants and all tree specimens that are there active. But I don't think it's going to be a huge addition other than the garden areas that we have that are open So that's that's so we're kind of saying if we could do if we could there's this is a long there's a lot of forms that we have to get through and we're just trying to get through the kind of technical stuff while we you know continue to build out the the details of the architectural plans and Can I ask a question?

Will you guys be running special events out of this location or is it more meant to be a private environment for guests?

I don't foresee any of that use. I think this is for us a space for people to connect with nature and kind of be out of the hotel and frankly have an additional thing to do while in town. Getting people to stay longer has less impact and contributes more to the city.

Yeah, I was going to say, the interesting thing that I took away from, so when Hotel Arroba went forward with the landscaping plan, it felt very flat. But when you go out there and you experience the space, it is far from that. It is an experience as you cordon through. And I know you're obviously inviting the commissioners to experience the space as well as this space as well, and how they're going to interconnect. I invite each of you commissioners to take advantage of that tour because it is – I was there sitting before any work was done, anything went forward, and it felt very flat and unengaging, and it is not that by today's standards, and I'm close. So I'm curious, the space that you're talking about on the western side, which is where that spa is going to be activating, is there a thought to using kind of that similar palette from a landscaping standpoint?

Yeah, I can speak to that. It was, you know, thank you for liking the landscaping I did at the hotel. But it was very strategic in terms of creating vegetation screening and barriers to create private sections of the hotel grounds at Hotel El Roblar, which is not big. And so there was a lot of thought that went into that landscaping. Xeric landscaping in the front of the building, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But I won't go into all the details. But this property will be much simpler. Those palaverity trees are going to probably stay in the front. The back area where you're talking about the refuge the garbage would probably just have like one beautiful lemon tree some very simple landscaping maybe sort of a you know, it's a nice little very gentle kind of Fountain or something maybe a little bit of water, but this is a much simpler program than what we did at the hotel So I just I wasn't really gonna talk tonight, but I would just say that Any other questions about landscaping? Hey Brad

I would like to take your offer of a tour. I toured a year and a half ago when things were still little rough and I've been to the hotel but there's a sign that says you can't go out the back way unless you're a guest so I would like to see what that looks like for your guests who are going to be exiting the hotel and going to the spa and that's kind of where I would be curious

Yeah, on your note there, one of the interesting things is I was asking myself, what are the impact on the other businesses that are in a like for like business with what you guys do? And I actually think there's no connection. I think this is an additional service. We're not putting any of the other places that provide these kind of services out. And so I do think this will be a very popular service. That's part of why I want to maintain it for the community. I have had a lot of people say, hey, I can't go back behind there unless I jump in and stay a night or two or whatever. But I think having some avenue for the people to appreciate what you guys have done. The mission down in Riverside actually is a really great, I don't know if any of you have been to the mission in Riverside. It's a great example of private places where people want some privacy for whatever life situation they have. And then it's blended. And actually, I think the one thing they've done there is they have put crosswalks right in the middle of the road like we are talking about. As a user going down there to have dinner or whatever, I found them really usable and much safer than going up to the corner and having, and there is a little bit of a pinch point with your valet right there on the corner by the mob shop and kind of little bit of sharp turning around, you know, and so on and so forth. would actually be an advocate for thinking in that direction of let's just give people a straight eye line let's make it a little different it's a special place in Ojai and I don't I don't think we should be as generic you know in our approach on it but

Thank you for that. I just want to add, you know, I observe a lot around that area, as do you all. All pedestrian walkways and access across all streets need to be really reevaluated today. It's a little bit different than it was. There's a lot of safety issues that we've observed that are worth considering around our business and the neighboring business. So I do want to mention that. I also want to say, in terms of competition, Brad, like I think What I've learned too is there's a lot of independent work. The spa technician business is independent for the majority in town. And so I think what we're hopeful to see happen because of labor challenges and frequency challenges and ebbs and flows of demand, we're going to rely a lot on that working community to provide services at the hotel. as we are right now. There's a lot of people providing services to the hotel now that are in town and have active businesses. So I see our place having sort of an environment where community work is also welcome. We'll have a lot of flexible spaces that are for not just massage but also different kinds of treatment that reflect kind of the values of Sheila and the family that existed there before and some of those kinds of ideas that we want to incorporate. And I do want to propose, Lucas, there was a plan submitted by Kathy about closing that road. I do want to reimagine that because there was a long road. We don't have to go now, but I think it's worth considering what that looked like back then, how they were thinking about it not too long ago. Anyway, so thank you for that.

Do we have any other questions or comments for this team.

I don't for the applicant but I do just have general comments and questions for the staff.

Thank you. Yeah I'll just I'll just reiterate about the I think the fence on North Ventura Street. Yeah, just to make sure that, I mean, maybe it's a fence, but as long as it's very welcoming. I mean, I feel like it's a very modest, you know, touches the changes between what's existing, what's not. It's a simplifying, you know, kind of a stripping down, making it sort of be, you know, kind of blend in with the hotel across the street, you know, but I think... to make it still feel open, whatever that looks like. And it could still be screening, but to feel open.

I think what you see there now, if you observe it in that kind of way, with the planter barriers we have, we kind of like that. I think there's something that's inviting, but yet protects the space in a way. But there's a lot of ways you can approach and visualize the properties. Eric mentioned, I think, We're going to consider every sight line, every view shed to make sure it contributes to the beauty of that corner.

Thank you. I think it's going to be a big asset. I hope it works out for you.

Thank you. Can I mention just a couple of things here? I would be amiss without mentioning comments that have come in on this item. And it's a similar comment that came in in 2024 when this came forward as a concept review. And it's related to the Historic Preservation Commission getting an opportunity to weigh in. Now, as you heard, there is a historic resources report that was done by ARG. That is not included within your packet, but it will be included with your packet when this comes forward with the resolution and all of the bells and whistles to be talked about and considered.

The report by whom?

ARG, which is the name of the historic preservation, basically the firm that put together the historic resources report.

Was that a phase one?

Yes.

And did they determine it was significant for any reason?

So because it wasn't something that's on, so it was not. I think that's a simple, but they've also offered some options that I'd rather dive into those when it comes before this body. So there's two things here. One is the code does not require this to go to the Historic Preservation Commission. But when a report of this nature, a historic resource report is put together, there's an opportunity for the Historic Preservation Commission to provide comments. I caution you on that standpoint. And I think there's some legal pieces to that as well. The concern there is if they put together comments that then begin to sway the way in which you're evaluating this without having the necessary findings that go along with that, I think there's some concern there because it doesn't necessarily follow the typical roadmap of our process.

It's hard to comment as a planning commissioner without all the information. The historic report, the phase one, they said the building was not significant even though we had some very famous people that studied through World University. It was City Hall at one point. There's no significance to that. That's so surprising to me. Huh. Yeah, that just surprises me. So I'm curious to read that report. Is the city doing an initial study on this?

No. No initial study. So we'll be relying on exemptions that we'll be bringing forward at a future meeting.

OK. Lucas? That was one of my questions. Are we doing public input? I think there's a hand raised I have more questions but I probably should do that after public input Let's do the public input We have two cards we have Bill Miley

I am freezing. As I see the history from arriving in this city in 1968, it was a city hall for a few years, World University, Becker Group for offices, and then it became part of a Becker City Council supported housing development with many affordable units to be built inside. They were going to remodel it. And then that didn't work out. Becker was sued. They pulled out. It fell apart. I remember 18 months ago when you had a concept review and I participated. Lots of good comments. As I walked away, it was very positive. As I see this, Services proposed are spas, physical therapy-type services for both guests and also for, in some days, regularly scheduled for the public here in the Valley or wherever. So these are the points I want to make. The past concept review, as I remember it, was very positive in benefiting the economy and the residents. Two, the building is claimed by some to be potentially historical, or at least sitting in between two historical buildings. I go, there's historical, and they are, maybe you are. Three, when the Pacdale addition was approved by this commission, next to the museum, it wasn't considered historical or CEQA. Years ago, when there was a gas station where the mob shop is now, there was no concern about it being historical or next to the museum or CEQA. Five, one general plan, our general plan now has a new economic development section. for promoting good jobs that go beyond tourist visit lodging, which is okay. We have a lot of that. This plan does that. Good jobs, public benefits, and no historical value damage as I see it. It does add value to our downtown by adding support services. for the most part that don't require car travel. Oh, okay. The North Ventura Street from Ojai Avenue to Matilaha is a turnoff to get the north signal. I use it all the time. It's very narrow, but it works, keeps you out of the intersection at Ojai Avenue. Ball bouts at each of the Matilaha sidewalks could help with pedestrians crossing safely. 30 seconds. 30 seconds, please. This is really good for Ojai's economy as it diversifies jobs, bringing good jobs to the town. That's one thing that the city council has listed as a goal. We have lots of tourism, but we need good jobs, sustainable jobs, and this proposal fits well into our city's goals of doing that. higher income, it is inappropriate to require CEQA or historic review just because there are surrounding buildings that are now historic. Thank you. Thank you, Bill.

Larry.

Good evening. It's also cold in here. I shouldn't wear shorts. What he said. So ditto for that. I'm still amazed, after being here for nine years, that people actually buy property not contingent upon what they actually want to do. because if you show up and if you say no, they're stuck with what they got. So usually people buy it subject to. Doesn't happen in California, at least it doesn't happen in Ohio. It's a standalone business. Right now they want to share parking and that's great, okay, they own both properties. What if, and I'm a big what if guy, what if they sell one of the buildings separately, and let's assume they sell the spa separately, how much parking is required for the spa? Obviously not just eight. So is there something, as far as I can tell, that would require them to create the required parking? 16 spaces, take back something. Because otherwise, that building's not going to be able to get sold until somebody finds more parking. So there's got to be a contingency for what if, because right now they're tied at the hip. It's like when you took the Ojai Valley in and tied it to Topa Topa. You've got shared parking and fine, they're never going to sell it, and no one ever brought that up. But in this case, if it gets sold, they've got a problem. So I would suggest that if it does happen, that property now go back to get take get rid of the outdoor something got to require more parking because it's a standalone other than that there's just going to be a need for more parking because those streets are pretty sometimes clogged So that's the biggest concern. But shared parking is always an issue because I remember when the Rancho was required to get more parking. They wanted to do certain activities. They had to go out and find more parking and tie it to their activities. maybe they go out and find another lot somewhere just in case because They're gonna come back. Somebody's gonna come up and say hey, wait a minute now that more parking they've got employees There's more people servicing this place. There's not enough what if so Maybe hopefully plan for that.

I don't know how you do it Thank You Larry Okay We have a hand raised. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Hi, everyone. This is Ginger with Brownstein. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Go ahead.

Excellent. I'm not actually a member of the public. I'm representing the applicant today, but I wanted to make sure we got to speak about the lot merger requirement if now is the right time.

I'm sorry. Say that last sentence again. I couldn't hear you.

I said I wanted to make sure that we covered the lot merger requirement if now is the appropriate time. Sure. Okay. So you'll see on in your packet there is a contiguous lot merger section. And what that is, is a requirement to merge the two legal lots upon which this property sits. And In our view, that really is a make work type of condition that is not necessary. And we were hoping to get some feedback on that specifically here tonight. The property has existed in the current configuration for many decades, starting when the first building was constructed and then through the intervening decades. That's for when it was used as a courthouse, police station, chamber of commerce, world university, and in all of the permits that were issued during that time. During those permit processes, this issue of a lot merger never came up. It also did not come up during the most recent housing development proposal for the project. The configuration of the property the way it is is not harming anyone to stay the way that it has for decades. So why would we go through that effort now? COB, Bethany Collins, reason that we are objecting to it is that this first that it doesn't seem to be tied to any impact or development or permit that is being issued. COB, Bethany Collins, Given its history and the second is that the city of Ohio does not have an ordinance in place to address a simple lot merger. Instead, they will require the project to go through a parcel map process to merge the lots, which is extra time, money, and effort that is better spent investing in the community and has no real benefit. The requirement to merge the lots is an arbitrary requirement that benefits nobody, not the residents of Ojai, not the city, not the applicant, as well as not having a trigger or, as far as we can tell, a portion of the code which would require it at this time. So we'd like to know if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on that in order to better guide staff or the decision-making process with this permit. Second, I wanted to address one of the comments about the public zoning versus the VMU zone. It's my impression that the property has been vacant for many years. Because of the public use zoning the public use zoning really limits what's allowed to happen on the property, whereas your VMU your village mixed use district, which is a very exciting and progressive district that allows housing and commercial and other uses all to occur together is a much more flexible zone that allows much more opportunity for this property. So it should be supported, whether it be for the spa project or some other project. And then I think the last one I want to do is touch on that parking requirement. The parking, of course, was the number one topic during the hotel's reopening. And what we did was put together a parking study by Stantec. which used the ITE, which is the Institute of Transportation Engineers, parking generation manual and calculated that the project needed 78 spaces. That's 78 spaces for a Saturday full occupancy. The hotel provides that number of spaces through a combination of onsite and offsite parking. One I wanted to point out that the parking demand as viewed in that it parking generation manual does not differentiate between employees guests or others. They do count the hotels trips that what they do when creating that parking generation. demand is they count the number of people exiting and entering and exiting and parking at hotels they don't ask the people leaving their cars. once there, whether they are working there or they are a guest. So that generation counts for everybody. It does not differentiate between the guest and the employee. The second piece is that the definition of the hotel does not take each piece of the hotel and add them together. It doesn't say your restaurant has X number of spaces, X number of rooms, X number of treadmills, and count them together. Instead, it defines a hotel use as a place of lodging that provides sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meetings and banquet rooms, convention facilities, recreational facilities like pool, fitness rooms and other service types. So to say that is that the reason the definition includes all is that those users of the spaces would be hotel guests. So that 78 number is the Saturday use and the weekday number is 52. That parking number, that 52 weekday, is what is driving the ability to allow the local residents on those off-peak times. So to open the spa on a weekend on a Saturday, like you're asking, does change the way we look about parking and how we consider that. So that number really is driven by the parking and the use by the hotel employees as well. And then last I wanted to say for that mid block sorry I know i'm covering a lot of different points here that the mid block crossing there is something that I think. Public works would need to opine on I know a lot of times they don't want to see a mid block crossing so I just would hazard that I wouldn't want to be conditioned or penalized. To either provide or not be able to provide that mid block crossing if it wasn't supported by public works. Thank you.

Thank you, Ginger.

Do we have any further questions or comments to?

A question just legally to make sure I have a correct understanding. So right now there is no mechanism in the city to do the quote unquote merge of the lots. Is that a correct understanding? There's nothing codified to do that.

That's my understanding. Is that a conclusion that we've... come to on this?

It's kind of an interesting scenario. So when I first started here, we've been using a lot line adjustment as the tool to merge lots together. And that's been a practice I've used elsewhere. However, when I've used it elsewhere, we've also had the voluntary merger as an option in our code. That just does not exist for whatever reason in our code currently, which is kind of odd. It was something I noted when I first started here, but.

Do you anticipate having that put into code?

So yeah, so.

How long would that take?

Yeah, recently city council gave direction to move forward with the planning of several potential code amendments and that one was on the list.

I guess my comment would just be we have to be very careful on sequencing to condition this on something that doesn't exist as code in the city. We've just gotta get that right or at least have a perspective on the lot line adjustment or the certificate of merger of some sort or whatever we're gonna do.

Right, what's the tool, what's the mechanism?

And they're both legal and they're both on the books in Ojai.

The voluntary merger?

Well, the lot line adjustment, which is appropriate. I mean, you can use it to do the merger. have used it previously under uh... previous legal advice the legal advice now is that we need a voluntary merger but i mean we can so we we would have to codify a new ordinance for a voluntary merger to give to them yes of the idea of using the lot line adjustment that we already have right so the other

Legal is identifying and advising that that is not the appropriate tool and mechanism. So we have used that in the past. What they're saying is that is not the appropriate mechanism. And in having conversations with our city engineer in terms of what the appropriate mechanism is that we have at our disposal, their option, the city engineer's option is a parcel map, which is also an option but significantly more expensive.

I would hope that the next staff report will expand on this subject considerably if we need to make decisions I'm going to need to understand it better yeah I can certainly go into a lot more detail on that currently the the lot line goes right through the middle of the building right correct so that's why we have to do a merger

you're doing any building permits at all on a single building that crosses two properties you need to have a merger so that's why we're doing it so to answer ginger's question yes we're gonna require that I mean we should I should say I mean I'm only one person who's recommending to the City Council but I mean that to me is a no-brainer you have one building crossing a property line You have to have a merger. You can't, because where does that property building permit go if they sell one of the properties?

Yeah, the typical triggering mechanism, and maybe John can, I'll try to take an attempt at the response to this, is anytime that you're doing something that changes the code, for instance, a change in zone gives us the opportunity and the authority to make sure that everything is being done right. So a line that is arbitrarily there, this is an opportunity to fix that kind of thorn that is in the side of this site for a number of years.

I would just add that there might be several reasons that you'd want to do this action. Development across property lines, if the property line is going right through the middle of the development, would be a pretty compelling one. zoning I think you mentioned that you know frequently setback compliance could raise an issue that you'd want that and then just basically in terms of simplification you know

rectifying old parcel maps and you know you get some benefit from from simplifying through this type of action yeah part of my research on this was looking at the subdivision map act and I'll quickly add I am NOT an attorney but it did seem that there were pieces around that that speak directly to the the convenience of that you're talking about and Katrina it is kind of a common-sense guideline of if you have a a contiguous building across two pieces that, but it looked like there had been a little bit of a change from the state standpoint of them trying to control this subdivision mapping piece that may make that lot line that might, I don't know if that's part of the discussion on your guys' end, That looked like there was a really easy place for us to get tangled up so that we just want to make sure whatever the decision is, however it's presented for whatever forward going in the council, we want to have that sequencing right so we don't get nabbed on a technicality. And then we've seen ourselves get nabbed on a technicality a few weeks ago, so that's why I mentioned that.

Could I also ask, who is the final authority to give a go-ahead on a crosswalk?

Well, that would be council, but it would be looking at the recommendations from the public works department. So more specifically, the public works director. So hearing some interest in that and interest, I think I'm kind of hearing that from the commission standpoint. The nice thing about what we're doing here is we're getting that feedback. I don't want to call it a concept review because there's more in depth in terms of what we're looking at here. But it gives staff the opportunity to go back, take those questions, and put a hard response down in terms of what we're hearing and the research that we're doing behind the scenes. So what you'll end up seeing here for the second meeting when this comes back is those questions in a staff report with fairly detailed responses.

Yeah, and we just need to pay attention because we also have a knock-on fact that I would like to understand a little bit about, and I don't know the full issue, but remember there's been the discussion of the state with the parking there at Westridge on the strip right in front of Westridge that's currently marked as no parking. And I know in one of our meetings in the past, there was some consideration for what would happen there. And I would definitely want to know what's going on with that because now you're talking about in front of Westridge on what's currently red, 30 cars sitting there. Then we got a little bit of the pinch point with the valet coming out and so on and so on. And so I think we should just do the research and learn what that's gonna look like.

I don't know if the crosswalk is necessary if we're going to block off that whole entrance. Well, apparently it's not an entrance. The courtyard.

If the courtyard is not to be used, then perhaps they won't do the crosswalk.

Just to make sure I understand the merger thing real quickly, you're saying that the voluntary merger is not in the provision in the code right now, but they can use that mechanism Right.

They cannot use that mechanism until we have it. Until it's in the code. Right.

So in a way, so what's complicated here is in the staff report is the contiguous law merger is saying we'd like you to use this thing that's not yet in the code.

They can use the parcel map, though.

They could use a parcel map as an option. But that's not in this here. It is not. So the question is going to be, what's the appropriate mechanism moving forward? And you're going to get a fairly detailed response in the staff report. highlighting those options moving forward.

The voluntary merger would be nice to have because it's a simpler process.

It would be lovely. There are several projects that we have right now that demand the voluntary merger.

They demand it, but we can't use it. Yes. Got it. Perfect sense. Yeah, just getting on the same page. Okay.

More? I do. Okay. Go for it.

I just have some clarifying technical things. I actually, I like the project. I think it's great. I've been to El Roblar. I've been to a special event there in the ballroom, and it's fabulous. It's amazing. It's better than I can imagine. i even imagined so i i just love the whole building and how it was done so great job um so it's just some clarifying um things regarding the spa there in this um in the staff report it said that um c1 wasn't an option because um spa wasn't part of the c1 not allowed but it is i just checked it it's allowed under um health and fitness facility But the residential component, C1 only allows a caretaker's residence. So it's really the residential component that is kicking it into VMU.

Thank you for the clarification.

So VMU would allow other residential options other than a caretaker.

Right. And it's interesting, VMU even allows for single family, typical VMU. A traditional mixed use typically takes away the single family. I've had this conversation when we were doing some fairly comprehensive code cleanup. Here, this community is very much in favor of that single family piece remaining, so yes.

So anyway, that was just a point of clarification. We did get letters from two other people besides Craig Walker, Debbie Sweetak and Leslie Hess. And they had similar comments that they wanted a public benefit analysis of the zone change and the general plan amendment. And they had issues with parking. and one of their comments they both said it is don't give away public land but I just want to clarify that it's not public land it's privately owned and it is designated as public quasi public as a general plan and zoning designation currently so it's not

On public land.

On public land. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Would you think a traditional park would be or like a use?

It's a use, not an ownership issue.

But within that, I guess, right, there may be also, right, it's a designation, which I guess if the city were to,

purchase some other land at some other point in time we consider changing that over to public was a public right so I mean if the city bought that land I mean you could actually the city could put a park there they could good so it's it's really not there's no downside I think to making the zone change and the general plan amendment It allows more flexibility with that zone. It allows more uses. It allows more housing, which is consistent with the general plan. So anyway, that's another point of clarification. I just wanted to say if anybody out there is thinking that the city is giving away public land, that's not the case. I am interested in the CEQA component of it. I think not because this is next to historic buildings, but because it could be historic on its own. But if there was a phase one that says that it's not historically significant, I'm curious to just read that. I think this project wouldn't really impact any historic significance, if there was some there, except for possibly the fence that is cutting off what I would imagine being a character designing feature of that building, which is the courtyard. So just from a historic perspective and the character defining element of that building, I think I would prefer to see it open and have the entrance there. But, you know, I wouldn't die on that sword because I know that you guys have done a good job and the procession into your front door is going to be a good one. I'm hoping when I see the landscape plan. So, if that's worked out well, you know, the courtyard would still remain, so it doesn't go away, but it just takes it out of the public realm, which is, I think, kind of a bummer. Let's see. The other thing, I agree that the staff report and the application says this would be a standalone project, but the traffic analysis Was done linking it to the hotel parking analysis was linked to the hotel operations For trash and whatnot are linked to the hotel. So it really is not a standalone it could be called a standalone if there's some kind of development not a development agreement, but agreement that runs with the land and related to parking, traffic, you know, the analysis, trash, you know, to have some kind of coordinated agreement that runs with the land because they are linked. They are linked. I mean, the applicant said they're linked.

Yeah, it's an interesting piece that you just mentioned there. And I get the sense that, because there's going to be a conditional use permit that goes along with this as well. And there may be conditions that help to flush that point that you're mentioning. You're right, it's fine for right now, 25 years from now. I can think of a property that's four doors down from here that has had a lot of conversation, a lot of interest. I'm not gonna mention it, don't anybody say anything. We all know which one it is.

I know this has been a problem in town before.

But because of the conditions that were on that property, it required it to go through a process. a public hearing process. So I get what you're saying there. That makes sense.

I would just make a comment. I agree with you that going from VMU to private doesn't necessarily mean everybody's prohibited.

It's the other way around.

Public to VMU.

Well, it's Village Mixed-Use going to... No, it's the other way around.

It's public quasi-public currently. It's current.

But is it currently zoned VMU? No. That's what we'll be going to, yes. My mistake. At any rate, the spirit of my comment is going from all public to private does change it, and I think it warrants being open to hearing people have a viewpoint on that and being able to listen to that. And then the only other... would be to have an understanding, you know, typically in a business like this. Do I have it wrong? Oh, okay.

I was just curious.

He was looking at my notes.

I was just trying to see what it was. What does it really mean? It's like what is possible in the public versus what's possible in the VMU. We'd have to kind of dive into that to really make sure that it makes sense.

Inside of the business, I would imagine there will be service level agreements of some sort, and that might be an avenue to look at some of those issues. Between the two entities, it's likely they will have what's called a SLEI, which will be a service level agreement. It's likely there will be a connection there, so I wouldn't necessarily say that because they're two entities, they're two different things, really. There will be a way that they will be linked that we could look at. they wanted to sell it at some point in time isn't that when they would create the agreement well if anybody wants to sell anything they can probably find a way to sell it is the brutal reality but but I think there would be a way to either condition or at least give Avenue for the community to understand what what those agreements are because it is true that they're they're different entities being used to qualify different things And so that's an avenue for citizen input for sure.

I Would like to just make note of the fact that if this were a historic site The outside of the building is not being changed so What's the problem? the historic location the only The only restriction that you have is to not change the outside of the building. You can do anything you want inside. So I guess other than that fence, I don't understand why this is really even a problem.

and i think that's what katrina's saying is like the fence seems like it's the biggest thing impacting the formal expression of the building on the street and how it interacts with you know we don't like the fence well yeah we've i think no i think that we've discussed it and they have been responsive and i think what we also probably know from the el roblar and just from this proposal is that they're yeah they're trying to do the nicest thing they can so likely, in the end, if they put a fence up, they might look at it and be like, yeah, maybe this wasn't the best idea. So I think we're going to get maybe to the right place. I don't know. I mean, in the end, I think these designations are not just about, obviously, them. It's about the future, like long term. But maybe once they take it over and it becomes a staple for the neighborhood, it's the linchpin in giving it the phase one designation that it needed or something over time. So I think what's nice about the proposal is it does sort of just respect what's there and just kind of like delicately add to it. I think that's pretty nice. I do think, I will say, I think it's an interesting idea about closing down Ventura, that portion of Ventura Street. I'll just put my hat in the ring for that one.

There will be a response, obviously, to how that functions. Yeah, yeah, of course.

I mean, it's complicated, but I think it's the start of, it's just the part of this larger conversation about driving and parking and walking and how we use Ojai now and into the future. So, you know, I think it's an interesting... wanted to have as part of the dialogue. I don't have much else to say. I mean, I think that this is, it's all looking pretty nice. I mean, I think that there's, yeah. It'd be interesting to see it next, on the fifth and maybe have a better sense still of how the kind of entry sequence all works.

Okay, I think we've given you all of our opinions at the moment, and I hope that you're able to use them to your benefit. And with that, we will close the subject and look forward to seeing you back on the 5th.

Okay.

I'm sure now that you, yes. Bye-bye. Okay future agenda items is next.

All right. On the 5th, you're going to see this item again, but it's going to be in a much more robust format with a resolution and responses and a lot of research taking place over here on this side of the house for the next couple of days. I've already started doing, just so you guys are aware, I've already started doing some of that on the down low, so I'm excited to share with you some of those pieces. There's that piece. There's also an appeal, again, an appeal for a director's decision for tenant protections at 1620 St. Gabriel Street. This is... An apartment house? No, it's off of St. Gabriel, so it kind of functions as a... Well, I don't want to give a whole lot away. Just know that it's part of the tenant protection program, essentially, so... That one's coming forward, request to modify conditions of approval for minor CEP at Ojai Roots. Ah. So, 30 seconds. This body has seen this before. It's coming back, it's a new owner. That's all that I'm going to say at this point. So, you should expect lots of people here.

We have, have we all?

Yeah, we'll give you the history on it. Obviously you're gonna wanna see that. Yeah, it's been, it was a contentious item a few years back, so you should expect the same thing.

Okay.

So be prepared. And then no items anticipated for the 19th, so let's see what happens once we get to the fifth. There are a couple items that I'm aware of that may be ready by then, so.

Good. And do you have anything else for a director's report?

The only thing I would mention is two things. One is I'm not sure that you guys are aware of this, but on a biweekly basis, I'm meeting with Ramian Associates regarding the general plan update. And with those pieces, we have really been hitting the ground running on two things. Well, lots of different pieces. There's a lot of different moving parts going on with it. You guys already saw the safety element. That's going to the safety commission, obviously not in this first meeting, but the following meeting. And then it'll be back before this body. And we're also looking at the circulation element that's getting really close to come to this body. So you could potentially see that in early fall. The climate action plan is also going to come before this body. So you should be seeing that soon. The economic diversification element is getting really close to coming forward. So I think we were looking at timelines that still require some workshops and other pieces that you'll be hearing about once those come up. So there's a lot going on from the advanced planning, long-range planning house, and not just on the stuff that you're seeing here that are project generated. So a lot going on from a CDD standpoint, for sure.

Okay. Commission member reports, anybody have anything? Who's up for the next meeting that Mac has? Okay. And you're in town, and you're all set to go.

Well, I'm not sure I'm set to go. Okay. You're ready to cover it. I'd like to get a little bit of background. I've been looking for a little background on what to present.

Right. So, Bruce, if you want, we can talk offline. Because it's really just you're giving kind of a report of the actions that the Planning Commission has taken recently.

Yeah.

Oh, some of the context of.

I imagine it looks like a small meeting, but I don't know.

Yeah, but there's a complete, I mean, when that item comes up, they want to hear what's happening in Ojai from the planning perspective.

It's only safety and planning, so.

on the agenda so there's probably have to be something substance okay um our liaison uh council member whitman is unable to be here this evening uh contacted me this morning about that so but he'll he'll be here next time um anything else anybody okay with that we will adjourn at 9 22.