Ojai Planning Commission denies expansion as presented for Ojai Mountain Farm, will return with written findings

The Ojai Planning Commission voted on March 4 to deny the proposed expansion of outdoor dining and related alterations at Ojai Mountain Farm as presented, and asked staff to return to the next meeting with a written resolution listing the specific findings that cannot be made.

Commissioners weighed a string of concerns raised during public comment and staff briefings, including whether the project had been appropriately processed under the California Environmental Quality Act and whether separate approvals over time had “piecemealed” key land‑use decisions. Resident Craig Walker told the commission he believed "neither project has had a proper CEQA review," said the cumulative changes amounted to roughly "900 square feet," and urged the commission to keep the original conditional use permit boundary near the previously allowed 360 square feet.

City staff, represented by Community Development Director Lucas Seibert, said the project had been screened for CEQA and three categorical exemptions were identified that staff believes apply. Seibert also told the commission the walk‑in freezer at the site had been authorized previously through a zone clearance that, after legal review, appears to have been an inappropriate ministerial process; currently the freezer is treated as a nonconforming use. "That zone clearance was really the inappropriate and inexcusable process by which we went through," Seibert said, noting the city has shifted away from zone clearances for items that should be discretionary.

Commission discussion focused on multiple, overlapping issues: whether pandemic‑era fencing and other ad hoc installations had been permitted correctly; the city's anti‑piecemealing ordinance (cited in testimony as "section 10‑2‑18‑02"); whether the expansion in effect enlarged an existing nonconformity; and practical impacts including plaza maintenance and the freezer's noise and visual presence. Commissioners and members of the public debated whether conditioning approval on removal or modification of the freezer was legally appropriate when the freezer currently exists as a nonconforming use.

After deliberation, Commissioner Reichman moved to deny the application "as presented." The motion was amended to direct staff to bring a resolution back at the next available meeting that documents the specific findings for denial. The amended motion passed by roll call; commissioners instructed staff to draft the denial findings so the commission's rationale would be explicit on the record.

The commission did not adopt conditions that would authorize the expansion to proceed this evening; staff advised that a denial (and return with findings) would limit refiling of substantially the same application for a year unless the applicant made substantial changes. The applicant representatives said they could offer design changes such as cladding the freezer to be visually consistent with the plaza, but that internal remodeling to relocate refrigeration equipment would be an owner decision.

The commission's action is a recommendation-level decision on this discretionary item; the applicant may revise the application or work with staff to address the findings identified in the forthcoming resolution. The item will return to the Planning Commission for consideration of the staff‑prepared resolution that enumerates the findings that the commission determined cannot be made.