Ojai Planning Commission opens review of Title 10 use chart and definitions; staff to return with redlines

OJAI — The Ojai Planning Commission on Wednesday opened a detailed, discussion-only review of Title 10 of the municipal code — the city’s zoning use charts, related definitions, and conditional-use permit (CUP) processes — but took no formal actions.

Planning staffer Lucas told commissioners the purpose of the meeting was to identify inconsistencies between the use tables and the code glossary and to gather direction before drafting redline changes. "The item before you tonight is a discussion. There's no decisions being made," he said, urging commissioners to weigh in on priorities and research needs.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said the use charts and definitions no longer align in multiple places, producing discretionary interpretations by staff and potential uncertainty for residents and applicants. Lucas noted roughly 30–40 uses listed in the tables lack matching definitions and said staff will return with proposed language and comparative examples from neighboring jurisdictions.

Major topics and questions discussed

- Animal keeping and roosters: Commissioners flagged unclear language on animal raising and whether household birds and roosters are permitted. Staff and fellow commissioners noted that animal control rules (Title 5) and a previously drafted animal-keeping ordinance may govern some issues and agreed to search the code and past drafts. One commissioner observed that, absent a local ordinance, roosters "are allowed in the city as long as they're quiet," and staff said compliance and animal-control enforcement have resolved most recent complaints.

- Guest houses, ADUs and conversion risks: Commissioners debated whether guest houses should require CUPs or be permitted by right. The code currently treats guest houses differently from accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — guest houses are restricted by parcel size, limited to about 640 square feet and historically were deed-restricted to prevent conversion into full second units. Staff and commissioners discussed a potential loophole in which a building could be finished as a guest house and later receive a kitchen to operate as an ADU; staff warned that deed restrictions and design review have been used historically to limit conversions.

- Fees and infrastructure: The commission discussed sewer and utility hookup costs for accessory units. Lucas and commissioners cited a wide range of sanitary hookup fees — roughly $8,000 to $16,000 in examples given on the dais — and noted that ADU connection requirements can be a significant barrier for small and tiny houses.

- Mobile homes and state law: Commissioners reviewed the definition of "mobile home" and why some mobile homes on permanent foundations can be treated as single-family dwellings in residential zones. Staff said state law and federal manufactured housing standards may affect what the city may regulate and will be researched further.

- Commercial, M1 and VMU uses: The commission discussed dozens of commercial and light-industrial uses (Table 2-4) that do not have clear definitions in the glossary. Commissioners debated whether low-impact makers and small-scale manufacturing (pottery, small food processors) should be permitted in VMU or require CUPs, and whether the 500-foot separation rule for industrial uses remains appropriate in a small-city context. Some commissioners proposed making VMU uses CUP-level so the commission could vet proposals’ design and neighborhood impacts.

- Zoning map and administrative updates: Commissioners noted the zoning map in materials dated to 2008 and requested an updated map; staff said updating the map will require GIS resources and is on the prospect list for future work.

Public comment and next steps

Members of the public spoke during the comment period. Jacob Acosta described three proposals — an "eco living" project for people experiencing homelessness (about 85 temporary units), conceptual ideas for the Matilija/Ojai dam to improve fish habitat and visitor use, and a visitor map to promote hiking and local businesses. Lucas confirmed written materials would be included in the public record.

Lucas told the commission he will consult staff and outside examples, assemble a prioritized list of missing definitions and sections to redline, and bring back draft language and recommendations. Commissioners agreed more research is necessary and some asked to be assigned as liaisons for deeper dives. No formal motions or ordinance readings were taken at the meeting.

"If a use is not identified, then guess who gets to make up the definition? The director," Lucas said during the discussion, underscoring commissioners’ concern about discretionary interpretations. Staff said it will return with redlines and legal research on state constraints, animal-control cross-references, and examples from neighboring Ventura County jurisdictions.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes (Dec. 3, 2025): Motion to approve the minutes passed by roll call (yes: Reich Schmidt, Chesley, Murphy). The meeting proceeded as a discussion item; no other formal votes occurred.

The commission closed the item after public comment and moved to scheduling and administrative reports; staff asked commissioners to review circulated director-exemption memos by the Jan. 22 deadline. The body adjourned at 8:47 p.m.