Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers present spa and wellness reuse at 107 North Ventura; commission raises parking and safety questions
Summary
A proposal to adaptively reuse 107 North Ventura as an 8,500‑square‑foot spa and wellness center drew largely favorable comments on economic benefits but prompted commissioner and public questions about shared parking, pedestrian crossings, and a required lot merger; staff will return with detailed responses and a formal resolution.
Developers seeking to convert 107 North Ventura Street into a spa and wellness center presented a concept review to the Ojai Planning Commission on July 15 that would require a general plan amendment, zone change to VMU, a conditional use permit and design review.
Lucas Seibert, the city’s community development director, introduced the item and said no decision would be made that evening; staff asked the commission for feedback. Applicant Jeremy McBride described an adaptive reuse of the 8,500‑square‑foot building into a wellness center with eight treatment rooms, a small retail/check‑in area, a gym, sauna and outdoor courtyard. McBride said the project would not add floor area and that independent reports show it would generate about 87 daily trips—35 fewer than the building’s prior uses.
The applicant said on‑site parking would retain eight spaces and that the project will rely on shared parking with the adjacent Hotel El Roblar. The project team provided a historic resources report concluding rehabilitation standards are being met and an independent traffic and parking analysis that staff will include in the formal packet.
Commissioners and members of the public voiced three main concerns: (1) whether shared parking will be adequate if the hotel and spa are separated in the future and how to condition or guarantee long‑term parking; (2) pedestrian safety and whether to pursue a mid‑block crosswalk or other measures to direct guests safely between the hotel and the spa; and (3) a code process issue: the building straddles two legal lots, prompting staff and the applicant to discuss a required lot merger. Staff noted the city currently lacks a voluntary merger ordinance and identified parcel map or a future code amendment as possible mechanisms; staff committed to return with sequencing and cost/processing implications.
Public commenters generally supported reusing the vacant building, highlighting local jobs and downtown activation, but several asked the commission to preserve public access or visibility to the building’s courtyard and to scrutinize any fence design that might close off character‑defining features. The applicant said they favor making the courtyard and landscaping visible and accessible where feasible; they also said they are studying entry orientation, wayfinding and operational procedures to favor safe pedestrian movement and to limit additional parking demand during off‑peak hours.
Commissioners asked staff to provide more detail on the historic resources determination, CEQA path or exemption, the lot‑merger mechanism and alternatives, a parking contingency if the spa or hotel ownership changes, and public works input on any mid‑block crossing. Staff said the item will return on August 5 with a more robust staff report, a proposed resolution and responses to the commission’s specific questions.
Next steps: staff and the applicant will refine the plans, respond to queries about parking and the lot‑merger mechanism, and bring the project back for a formal public hearing and decision.
