Ojai City Council Regular Meeting

Cabin Village Site Selection

• The Council approved the lower Public Works Yard as the location for the permanent supportive housing project.
• Staff recommended this site to meet grant deadlines and avoid costs associated with environmental remediation.
• Concerns were raised regarding soil toxicity, ADA accessibility, and the preservation of parkland at alternative sites.
• The City Manager was directed to negotiate a development agreement and proceed with the design review phase.

• The Ojai City Council held a meeting to deliberate on the location and approval of the "Cabin Village," a permanent supportive housing project for residents of the Ojai Tent Town (OTT). The central debate focused on selecting between the city-recommended Public Works Maintenance Yard site and alternative proposals involving the City Hall campus or Kent Hall parkland.

Public Comment Highlights

• Support for Public Works Yard: Numerous speakers and staff supported the maintenance yard location. Arguments cited included thorough expert vetting, financial feasibility (avoiding costs associated with remediation or new parking), and grant compliance deadlines. Supporters emphasized that the grant funding must be utilized quickly for shelter and that delaying the project would leave residents in tents. They also noted the importance of preserving the 8-acre campus and Stewart Canyon as parkland, which has historical and ecological significance (including Chumash cultural value).
• Support for City Hall/Kent Hall: Opponents of the maintenance yard proposed alternative sites, including the City Hall parking lot and the Kent Hall area. Key arguments included concerns over soil toxicity and remediation costs at the maintenance yard, ADA accessibility issues (specifically the need for long, winding ramps due to the yard's incline), and the potential for better natural integration at the park sites. Some speakers advocated for using natural building materials like clay over cement and suggested the City Hall site would be less intrusive to the neighborhood.
• General Concerns: Several residents expressed concerns about the long-term sustainability of funding, the "inertia bias" of continuing a project simply because resources were already spent, and the desire for a comprehensive homeless strategy that included rental assistance rather than just a single housing project.

Council Deliberation

• Staff Position: Staff members defended the Public Works Yard as the only fully vetted option that meets the grant requirements. They stated that alternative sites lacked necessary studies, environmental reviews, and clear cost estimates, which would cause significant delays and risk losing the $12 million in grant funding.
• Council Positions: Council members were divided. Council Member Lang and Mayor Gilman argued that the project had been thoroughly vetted by professionals and was necessary to address immediate safety and health risks for unhoused residents. Council Members Whitman and Mang voted against the motion, citing concerns regarding accessibility, the potential for soil contamination issues, and a preference to explore rental assistance models or a "Plan B" location like City Hall before committing.

Outcome

• The Council voted on a motion to approve the lower Public Works Yard as the project site and directed the City Manager to negotiate a development management agreement with Dignity Moves. The motion passed with a vote of 3-2 (Yes: Lang, Gilman, Rule; No: Whitman, Mang). The meeting concluded with the understanding that further soil testing would be expedited, but the project would proceed toward the final design review phase. The meeting was adjourned following the vote.