Ojai planners deny Ojai Mountain Farm expansion as freezer, CEQA and plaza impacts loom

The Ojai Planning Commission on the evening’s first public hearing moved to deny Ojai Mountain Farm’s proposed outdoor dining expansion and asked staff to return a written resolution of denial at the next available meeting. Commissioners cited a walk‑in freezer that staff says is a nonconforming use, questions about the earlier zone‑clearance process that approved the unit, and public concerns about CEQA and plaza impacts.

Lucas Seibert, the city of Ojai’s community development director, told the commission the freezer had been previously approved through a zone clearance that legal review later determined was not the appropriate land‑use process. “That zone clearance…was not an appropriate land use process,” Seibert said, and he identified the freezer as a nonconforming use that cannot simply be resolved through the current discretionary review of an outdoor dining expansion.

Why it matters: The expansion would add removable fencing and additional outdoor seating to a plaza area that neighbors and business owners say is historically sensitive and managed by a plaza maintenance district. Public commenters also argued the project lacks proper environmental review and pointed to noise and cumulative footprint concerns that they said should trigger CEQA analysis.

Staff and applicant changes: Staff presented revisions the applicant made since December, including replacing an oversized umbrella with standard market umbrellas, changing fencing materials from wood to metal to match neighboring outdoor dining, and clarifying the outdoor dining boundary. Architect Patrick described designs for removable railing attachments that bolt to an existing concrete slab under the pavers and estimated the seating would be about 28–32 patrons depending on table configuration.

Public objections and CEQA: Several members of the public urged denial. Craig Walker said the project had not received proper CEQA review and raised noise concerns, stating, “If you’ve gone down there and heard the noise from the freezer, 58 decibels continuously. I don’t see any mention of that in the administrative report.” Other commenters urged that the freezer be architecturally integrated with brick or similar finish so it would not read as a metal box in the plaza.

Commission debate: Commissioners questioned whether issuing a discretionary approval for an expansion while a nonconforming freezer remains in place would amount to piecemealing. One commissioner cited a city ordinance on combining permit applications and urged that the tree permit, zone clearance, and CUP be considered together. Seibert advised against conditioning approval on removal of the nonconforming freezer because the freezer currently exists and the legal process for addressing the nonconformity differs from conditioning an expansion approval.

Action and next steps: A motion to deny the application as presented was amended to direct staff to return a formal denial resolution listing the required findings that could not be made; that amendment passed in roll call (ayes recorded in the transcript: Raj Schmidt, Chesley, Murphy). Seibert told the commission that a denial without substantial revision typically prevents filing the exact same application for one year, and that any future changes would need to be substantial (removal or modification of the freezer, modification of plans) to allow a new filing.

What’s next: The commission’s denial as presented does not prevent the applicant from operating under previously approved permits where applicable; staff will prepare a written resolution of denial and return it for the commission’s consideration at the next available meeting. The commission’s action explicitly leaves room for the applicant to pursue design changes or a separate process tied to the freezer’s nonconforming status.