Ojai planning staff and commissioners weigh zone change, CUP as gas station seeks to add alcohol sales

Ojai Planning Commission members reviewed a concept plan on June 18 for a zone change that would reclassify the property at 1124 Maricopa Highway from Business Professional (BP) to C1 (commercial) so an existing gas station and a convenience store could be made conforming and the site could seek to sell beer and wine. No formal action was taken; the meeting was a conceptual review and staff and the applicant were seeking comments.

The matter reached the commission because the convenience store was added to the property without a permit after the gas station’s conditional use permit (CUP) was granted in 1996, staff said. Under the Ojai Municipal Code the BP zone does not permit service stations or standalone convenience stores, while the C1 zone allows convenience stores and permits alcohol sales (subject to a CUP or licensing requirements). Lucas, planning staff, told commissioners, “no decision is being made tonight. It's a conceptual review,” and outlined two main routes: a legislative zone change to make the existing uses conforming or a discretionary conditional use permit to expand or amend the existing approvals.

Why it matters: the parcel sits between medical offices and a Caltrans storage yard, is across the street from a shopping center that includes an off‑site alcohol retailer, and is approximately 748 feet from Matila Junior High School, staff noted. The property’s proximity to other alcohol retailers and to a school and residences means state licensing rules administered by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) could affect whether a new retail alcohol license will be granted. The applicant said ABC has already approved a transfer pending local authorization; staff estimated a rezoning process would likely take about 4–6 months.

Discussion and options

Staff explained the two paths under current rules. Lucas said a zone change to C1 would bring the site into conformance so the convenience store and any allowed expansions would no longer be nonconforming and the 1996 CUP could be retired or reviewed for consistency. He told the commission that the “cleanest” route to conformance is to change the map but cautioned that legislative rezoning requires city council action and takes longer than a CUP.

The applicant, Evelyn Abbasi, counsel for Ojai Gas Inc., and owner Neil Abbasi told the commission they initially tried to pursue a CUP but were told the convenience store does not fit the BP zone and a zone change was suggested as the clearer path. Evelyn Abbasi said the business has been on the highway “for decades” and that the owners want to remain competitive as retail fuel markets shift: “we're just trying to be a viable, just to keep up with everybody,” she said, adding the current plan is limited to beer and wine and is a transfer of an existing local license in escrow.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on details. Among the points raised in discussion: - History and permitting: staff confirmed the gas station was granted a CUP in 1996 but the convenience store was added later without permit; that is the source of the current nonconformance. - ABC rules: the commission heard the ABC typically considers distance to schools, churches and hospitals (the staff summary cited the agency’s usual 600‑foot consideration for schools and similar facilities and a 100‑foot residential buffer for some license types) and that ABC would have to approve any license transfer. - Pathways and timing: staff said a CUP could be pursued for a limited expansion if the commission finds the expansion is “minimal” and not more detrimental than permitted uses, but that certain convenience‑store uses are not allowed under BP so a CUP alone may not be feasible; the rezoning process to C1 would require an ordinance and council review and could take roughly 4–6 months, though complex cases have taken longer. - Conditions vs. permanence: several commissioners favored a zone change so the property would be in conformance and staff would not be repeatedly asked to adjudicate nonconforming uses; others favored a CUP as a faster, more controllable way to allow alcohol sales while attaching conditions, such as limits on packaging or hours. As one commissioner put it, a CUP “offers the opportunity for conditions, for control where a zone change opens it up to less control.”

Staff, applicants and commissioners discussed a compromise: grant a time‑limited or narrowly conditioned CUP (to allow the transfer and beer/wine sales in the short term) while the applicant pursues a zone change that would permanently resolve the nonconforming status. Staff said that approach is procedurally possible but would require the applicant to file the CUP application and staff to verify the factual findings that the code requires.

What the applicant says

Evelyn Abbasi told the commission the business is in escrow for a transfer of a local beer‑and‑wine license that ABC has preliminarily approved and that the owners had not realized the convenience store was nonconforming when they took over the property. “This is a family business that's been there for decades,” she said, asking the commission for help to keep the business viable while compliance is sorted out.

Next steps and staff direction

Staff said it will work with the applicant to clarify which of the two tracks is practicable and to prepare the required findings if the applicant applies for a CUP. Staff also advised that if a CUP application is filed and denied, the applicant could still pursue a zone change but would need to file a separate ordinance application and restart that process, which would add time. The commission provided comments for staff and the applicant to consider and emphasized the need for clear findings, possible mitigation conditions and to confirm ABC distances and the license transfer status.

Ending

Because this was a concept review, the commission did not vote. Staff asked the applicant to consult with planning staff on which application to file and to provide any supplemental materials. Commissioners said they would consider both options at a subsequent hearing and encouraged a short‑term solution if it would preserve the owners’ pending license transfer while protecting neighborhood interests.

Quotes in this article come from the meeting transcript of the June 18 Planning Commission meeting and are attributed to speakers who appeared in that discussion.