The Ojai Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to continue consideration of a design review permit (DRP25-010) and a conditional use permit amendment (CUP25007) requested by Ojai Mountain Farm for expanded outdoor dining at 242 East Ojai Avenue.

The project would formalize outdoor seating at the rear plaza and increase the area the applicant seeks to authorize from the 2007 approval of 360 square feet to 527 square feet. Staff told commissioners the current request covers a movable cedar planter/pony wall approximately 3.5 feet high, new furniture and a large umbrella; staff said a separate walk-in freezer and a replacement fence were approved earlier at director level and are not before the commission tonight.

Craig Walker, who said he sits on the Historic Preservation Commission but spoke as an individual, urged the commission to halt approval until historic impacts are analyzed. "An EIR is actually mandatory under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is on a property that is listed on the California register," Walker said, adding that patios associated with historic buildings "contribute to their historic character." He argued the project's current materials and a single large umbrella are not compatible with the Arcade Plaza design guidelines and could block sight lines and public circulation.

Other public commenters raised safety and code questions about the walk-in freezer and asked whether the use of public plaza space requires a lease or annual public-works permit. Commissioner comments echoed public concerns: several commissioners said the proposed cedar pony walls and a 19-by-19-foot umbrella with vinyl sides conflicted with Arcade Plaza guidance favoring open, movable wrought-iron panels and cloth umbrellas. Commissioners also questioned core-drilling into plaza brick for umbrella footings and the precedent created by formalizing expanded dining on public property.

Planning staff said the original 2007 CUP remains in effect and that the department had approved a replacement fence and the freezer by director's exemption; staff reiterated that modifications to a commission-approved CUP must come before the commission. Given the mix of design, circulation and historic-preservation concerns, staff described three options: approve as presented, deny, or continue to obtain Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) comment and let the applicant revise plans.

Commissioner [speaker 5] moved to continue the matter to allow the applicant to consider planning commission comments and to obtain HPC review; Commissioner [speaker 7] seconded. The motion passed on roll call: Murphy — Yes; Chesley — Yes; Graham — Yes; Reich Schmidt — Yes. The motion directs staff to schedule the item for further review after the HPC provides comments so the applicant can return with a revised proposal.

The commission also recorded that some elements (the freezer and the taller fence that encloses it) were processed at staff level earlier via a director's exemption; several commissioners asked staff to clarify the DE process and notification practices in future reports.

The commission's action was procedural: no final permit was adopted and no finding was made tonight about CEQA compliance or design conformance. The applicant may bring revised plans addressing design guidelines, sight lines and circulation, or the commission could receive HPC comments before reconsideration.

The commission adjourned after taking the continuation vote.