Ojai speakers urge council to let Ojai Mountain Farm’s freezer stay; council holds closed session on anticipated litigation

Ojai City Council heard an extended round of public comment Feb. 24 in support of a walk-in freezer installed behind the patio at the planned Ojai Mountain Farm shop, with speakers saying the unit is essential for food safety, sustainability and the operator’s business model. After public comment the council went into closed session for an informational briefing regarding anticipated litigation and later reported no action was taken.

Supporters and project partners told council they built operations around approvals they received months earlier. “We built our entire business around the approvals that we got,” said Tony Yano, the managing partner of Ojai Mountain Farm, asking the council to “recognize the work we’ve done, the process we followed and the investment we’ve made.” Jason Holdsworth, a founding member and culinary director with the project, said the team passed an environmental health final plan-check inspection earlier that day and described the freezer as necessary to safely store seafood, preserve surplus fruit and reduce delivery frequency.

Several local residents and business collaborators emphasized the project’s emphasis on regenerative farming and reducing carbon footprint. Logan Gould, an Ojai native who worked on the project, said the freezer “doesn’t bother me at all” and could be made more attractive if needed. Chelsea Cox, speaking for Ojai Mountain Farm, said the freezer “will not be left uncovered” and that the team intends to install a wooden fence and screening that respects the historic arcade’s character.

Not all remarks were uniformly laudatory on aesthetics. Larry Steingold said the installed metal unit makes the arcade look “like the back of a strip shopping center” and urged the operator and council to find a way to integrate materials so the freezer matches the arcade’s look to avoid legal and community friction. He recommended using wood facing to blend the unit with surrounding facades.

Multiple speakers said they had relied on permits and approvals issued earlier in the process. An unidentified business partner told council the freezer location was part of their initial plans and that they “received approval from day one until most recently,” saying they had planned operations around that permission and only became aware of the dispute in December. Ray Powers, another resident who tuned into the meeting remotely, asked council to let the prior approvals stand and warned that continued delays could discourage local innovators.

The council did not take any formal action on the freezer during the public portion of the meeting. Following public comment the council moved into closed session for an informational briefing related to anticipated litigation; in the report-out council said information was provided and no action was taken. The meeting was then adjourned.

The issue now appears to remain unresolved publicly: supporters asked the council to uphold approvals and work with the operator on screening and design; one community member urged a retrofit to match the arcade’s aesthetics. Council’s closed-session briefing indicates anticipated litigation is a live concern, but the council reported no vote or directive during the session.