UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.Scheduled start 6:00 PM · clock-time estimates pending review
0:00 – 0:029 turns
Okay, we're ready.
Thank you, I appreciate it. All right, thanks guys for waiting, I appreciate it. Thanks for your patience. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Ojai City Council, Tuesday, March 24th. Roll call, please.
Roll call — called by Mayor
Show transcript
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. Do I have any changes to the agenda?
No, I'll make a motion to approve.
Second, any objections? Okay, we will move on. So we have a presentation tonight, Spark the Night, with a proclamation recognizing World Parkinson's Day, April 11, 2026. Mr. Harvey.
Thank you, Mayor, and I think I'm going to turn things over to Ms. Cervantes and former Ojai Mayor, Mr. Johnny Johnson, to receive the proclamation. Ms. Cervantes, do you want to tee this up for us?
Yes, so the mayor does have a proclamation for Parkinson's Day, which is April 11th. On April 11th, City Hall and our city facilities will have the blue light that will signify the remembrance of World Parkinson's Day.
I think I'll just read just the briefest, the beginning and the end. Whereas Parkinson's disease is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors and manifests in motor challenges such as tremors, rigidity, slowness, as well as non-motor symptoms, including depression, sleep disorders, cognitive decline, and difficult swallowing, there is no cure.
And we want to highlight this and proclaim that we as a City Council, on behalf of all of us, and myself as a City Council, hereby proclaim April 11th, 2026 as World Parkinson's Day in Ojai. I encourage all residents, organizations, and businesses in Ojai to join this effort by displaying blue lights, Participating in awareness activities and standing in solidarity with the Parkinson's community as we illuminate hope, promote understanding, and support the ongoing work to end Parkinson's disease.
I'm here on behalf of Charles Levin.
0:02 – 0:077 turns
Some of you may know Charles. In fact, he was a journalist for the Star newspaper and covered all the governments in West County. And Charles can't be here tonight because he is in New York. He just got back from a conference in Washington, D.C. on this subject. And he himself was not too long ago diagnosed with Parkinson's and he's participating in a clinical trial. So he contacted me and asked me if I would contact the city staff and the mayor and see if they, if the City of Ojai, who has a reputation for doing a lot of things first and doing a lot of things, ...that are kind to both the environment and to humanity. And in this case, this is a disorder that, you know, sometimes you go out of nowhere. It's not—they used to think of it as an old person.
Michael J. Fox was 29 years old when he was diagnosed. And he's done a lot of work and spent a lot of money studying the thing. So I'll just give you the high points or the low points of the high points to the low points. There is a diagnosis of this particular disorder, one every six minutes on the planet. The last time, well, a study was done back in the 70s that showed that Americans were being diagnosed about 60,000 a year.
The Michael J. Fox Foundation along with the Parkinson's Foundation conducted another study in 2022. Now the annual diagnosis of new patients or people with the disorder, 90,000. That's a 50% increase in that period. So it's the fastest growing neurological disorder, and they don't really know what's causing it. And so, in light of, without getting too political, the current administration of our Health and Human Services seems not to be interested in staffing and keeping data on a lot of stuff, and the only way in which this is going to be addressed is collecting data, just as they do in cancer and other kinds of diseases.
So, when he asked me if we would do it, I thought, well, I talked to Ben, and I said, you know, we tend to be a community that likes to help. It's fairly simple. The idea of shining the light is on Dr. James Parkinson's birthday, April 11th. He was the doctor in, I guess it was in England, in 1817, 1818. Don't quote me. I wasn't there at the time. He was the one who did the original examinations of about a half a dozen patients right during the killer fogs in London, where people were having these tumors. So there is a connection, both environmentally and definitely genetically.
So the idea was is let's, if we can get people worldwide to draw attention by putting a light, a blue light, on historic places, places of interest that people will see all over the world on the 11th. Four persons passed away in the last two years. Now, part of it is age. When you get to be 80, something's going to get you anyway. But it just seems to me that if you talk to people about this, you will realize that it's touching everybody's family.
You know, that's six degrees of separation. So anyway, thank you for...
Would
you
be willing to take a photograph with the council here in the front? Certainly.
Thank you.
Good job guys. Let me
get out of the way here so you guys can take a picture.
0:07 – 0:1534 turns
All right. Ms. Maurer, do we have any commission reports?
I don't have any.
Okay, and then City Manager's Report, please.
Thanks, Mayor. Tonight, we're going to do things a little differently. Normally, I like to read a few items from my weekly summary, but we have a special mini-presentation with a couple honored guests this evening, and this is going to be a video presentation with some brief commentary afterwards, so I'm going to turn things over to Ms. Cervantes to introduce this.
So, Mayor, Council Members, we're happy to announce that this week you will get the Outlook newsletter in your mailboxes. One of the articles is the MyOhi app. So, what we've done is we've made a few updates to the MyOhi app to allow for greater functionality. So, when you download the MyOhi app onto your mobile device of any sort, it's like having city services at your fingertips is really what we want to drive home.
You can check status and follow up. So to make this reinvigoration of the My Ojai app more engaging, we've engaged with Jamie Stratford and Michael Jorgensen, both from Ojai, who are here today. They're local artists, and so this will bring a playful, creative energy to the message. And here's the video for all of us.
That's pretty good. Thanks. That's really great.
Could we ask Michael to come forward just to say a few words about this, if he doesn't mind? Michael did the music for this.
Wonderful. Welcome. Hello. Hello, City Council. Thank you all so much. Jamie Stratford, who is extraordinarily shy, did the animation for this, and I did the music along with my friend Jesse Siebenberg, who maybe you know as another Ojai musician, has been here for a long time. And Jamie and I have been collaborating on these fun little videos. We've done a bunch for the Ojai Playhouse, the sort of like, you know, get your snacks, throw out your trash.
And then we did one about the Ojai Trolley, which I believe is the sort of the seed for this one. It's just something fun, cool to do for Ojai. I mean, that's really all there is to it. We're very appreciative. Oh, well, thank you so much. We're very, very, very proud about this. Thank you so much. Thank you.
I love the trolley one, too.
Yeah, the trolley was fantastic. Yeah, that
was
really fun. Yeah, we need to get a YouTube channel going or something. Sounds good. All right, thank you all so much. Thank
you,
sir.
Appreciate
it.
Anything else on the City Manager's Report?
Now we're going to leave it with that very positive information. Look for it coming on your social media channels and like
it,
please.
Thank you so much. Okay, we'll move on to public communications. I have a few cards here. I'm sorry if I'm going to get some of the names wrong. Lisbeth Seckle. Okay, please come on up. And then Leslie Gacki next and then William Wyrick after that.
Thank
you
for listening to me. For speed limit signs, thank you whoever did that. I can't remember what part of the city did that, but I love the new city limit signs. But I have one request. If we can get one more 25 mile an hour sign anywhere from Kenyatta Thank you very much. Give me interesting gestures, yell at me, speed up, that kind of thing, especially the kids. But it really would be, there's no 25-mile-an-hour sign that goes on the right-hand side, on the west side, going up, but it's only from Kenyatta to, anyway. So that would be my big request. But other than that, I love the new signs. Thank you very much. And lowering them was interesting. Okay, is that you? Oh, thank
you.
No, no, all of us together. That was all of you, thank you very much. We only work as a team. Anyway, it's greatly appreciated. Thanks. And the other thing is, if we could please, we have a lot of kids in our neighborhood, not in our neighborhood, but they come to our neighborhood. The bicycle gang riding thing, I realize boys will be boys, I've been yelled at before, but honestly, these kids are blocking traffic.
I had to get behind a bunch of them. They wouldn't move, they wouldn't do anything. And if something happened to one of them and I accidentally hit one, it's my fault. So if something can be done, we really have a problem on West Aliso about speeding and a few other things and stopping, but that's another thing. So this is a stop sign, not a go through, slowly stop.
Anyway, but thank you for the new speed limit sign.
This is very useful. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right, Leslie, I think it's
Gak.
Gosh, thank you so much. Will Ryrick and then Craig Walker, please.
Good evening. I wanted to speak about the Ojai REC Department's decision to host the Ojai's first pickleball tournament on June 7th or June 5th through the 7th at the lower Libby courts, all four courts. And it was brought to my attention because I went to the REC Department today to reserve four courts for a USTA batch. On the same weekend, but I was denied due to the pickleball tournament. Now, can you explain to me why there's a pickleball tournament being held at Libby Courts when we have five dedicated pickleball courts out at Soule Park?
And we have courts here at City Hall. Now, I know the city spent approximately $600,000 on those pickleball courts, and they wanted to restore the goodwill and peace among the neighbors and tennis players. Now, there are no pickleball signs on those courts. It's posted everywhere, and as well as signs stating, no other activities other than tennis. So I think this pickleball tournament is very disingenuous to the tennis community and to the neighbors. Thank you.
Thank you. I believe that there was some conversation around just posting something on the website explaining some of those details, but that's something we could talk about with staff. I'm here to speak about what is happening at Ojai
Mountain Farms
in Ojai's
Historic Arcade. It's a building listed on the California Register.
0:15 – 0:268 turns
We are being told that the changes to this historic building and the plaza are minor and don't require review or further discussion, but anyone who has seen these alterations knows they are not minor. They are substantial, highly visible, and may significantly affect both the building and the public space around it. The purpose of environmental review is simple. It ensures that decisions affecting historic resources are made transparently, with full information, and with public input. It exists to prevent exactly this kind of situation where incremental changes slowly erode the character of a place we all care about.
In this case, multiple additions were approved without the required review by either the HPC or the Planning Commission. The HPC recognized this and requested City Council review. A public meeting was scheduled, but then it was canceled and replaced with a closed-door session. Since then, we have been told that the unpermitted work would simply be labeled nonconforming and allowed to continue.
That's not a fix. It's a workaround. Nonconforming applies to structures that were once legal but no longer meet current standards. These additions were never legally permitted. They should not qualify. Let's be clear about what's being installed. A large electrical panel covering a historic brick facade and blocking a window. A walk-in freezer that emanates continuous noise measuring 58 decibels.
Metal ducting on the roofline, an unpermitted fence, large soft water tanks. Many of these are placed directly on the plaza, a public right-of-way that belongs to the people of Ojai, not a single property owner. The plaza is meant for gathering, for tables, chairs, and community life. What we're seeing now looks more like a service alley. The surrounding property owners and community members were never consulted or even notified.
People showed up to speak at the public meeting that was scheduled only to find that it had been canceled. This undermines trust in the process. What's being proposed now sets a dangerous precedent that unpermitted work, even on historic resources and public space, can simply be allowed after the fact. Please appeal the non-conforming designation and require proper environmental review.
Doing so will show that this council values transparency, respects the law, and is committed to preserving Ojai's historic character. Ojai is a special because people have cared enough to protect it.
Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Weirich, please. Ian Mondal, and then Clay Creasy, please.
I'd like to follow up with Mr. Walker. I'm going to string together some perceptions and follow up with a common sense idea. Perceptions. Staff seemed to violate a fundamental principle of proper planning practices, which was to engage in something that was substantive in character-defining or character-violating, depending on your point of view, but in a piecemeal fashion. I remember being constantly drilled, for years, when I was involved in planning and also when I was on this Council, that projects should not be piecemealed.
So, the perception is, and I'm not subject, I don't know everything you know, the perception is that there was a staff piecemeal approval of something that should have been included in overall review. You may be being advised that that perhaps has opened up some liability for the City in terms of the applicant and the fact that they acted in good faith and now they're looking at problems and getting final approvals.
But clearly there's a perception problem that this is a, you know, the Arcade Plaza was a public art installation. And we have this thing that's aesthetic abomination in most people's eyes that is violating that perception of it being a public piece of public art that's being violated. I would suggest that the Council direct or consider a constructive with humility approach Talk to the applicant, say we need to review this thing. We know that all that financial burden should not be on you for reviewing this and that the City Council takes some responsibility so that the applicant is not punished for the need to fix this problem. So that's my constructive suggestion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wyrick. Ian Mondo, please. Clay Creasy and then Chad Ress.
Hey everybody. My name is Ian. I live here in downtown Ojai. I'm a member of the Ojai Valley Tennis Club. I'm a board member and I'm also a rec tennis player and we've gone through this dance with the pickleball community for years and I know I believe three of you are here for a lot of those debates. So it's really frustrating to me with somebody who doesn't have a ton of time on our hands and you guys have way more serious things to talk about to re-litigate this conversation again, but I'm here to ask that you nullify the approval of the tournament that they plan on hosting at Libbey Park.
I felt it was important to remind the City of the conversations that have been happening for years. I mean, it goes back before COVID, but I believe it was in 2024 the decision was made to not allow pickleball, prohibit it. The signs are up. The Rec Department reinforced that with those signs. I believe the verbiage that was used was even on a temporary basis because at the time we were trying to relocate the City Hall ones.
That's why the Soule Park ones got created. Cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. The tennis community has fought this fight now for a good five or six years. We don't really want to do this again. I feel like if we let this one event go through, we're setting a precedent, right? How are we going to go back from that? And what is this loophole that's been created where just because it's a one-off event, we're not repurposing it for a pickleball? What's to say a one-day event, a doubles event, whatever, just doesn't become a recurring thing that the tennis community has to fight against every single time?
It's just a blatant disregard to all the decisions that have already been made. You know, the group, the Ojai Valley Tennis Group, they've just kind of relied on a very antagonistic bully, just won't take no for an answer. Measure O overturned the City Council's decision for these courts here. We got the Soule Park ones installed. Clearly, that's not going to stop them from continuing this fetish of having Libbey Park, which is, we are a huge tennis community. We put on the oldest tennis tournament in the entire U.S., except for the U.S. Open. For everybody, you know, this debate between tennis and pickleball might sound really trivial and stupid, and I understand that, but for the tennis community that's trying to uphold that history and hold on to those courts, this is important to us, and it's just really tiring to have to be back here and be Going over this all over again.
So, yeah, my ask being here today is that the City Council just nullify that event. If we put that one event out of its misery, then we won't have to be back here again having this conversation. So thank you.
Thank you, sir. Clay Creasy. Try to hold up if you can. Clay Creasy, Chad Ress, and then Francine Castanon.
Good evening, Council. I have to say, to start, the theater guy in me enjoys seeing such a full house, so it's got its upsides, even if we don't always agree on everything. At the Speaking of Not Agreeing last Council meeting, I made some points about our budget situation and the deficit, and at the end of my comments, The Mayor made a comment that he thought I was perhaps obfuscating the issues.
Well, I didn't know whether to be insulted or not, so once I got home, I checked my dictionary, and it wasn't really an insult. He was just saying that I could have been more clear. So tonight, I'm going to try to be a little more clear by approaching the budget issue from a different angle. Five years ago this month, in March of 2021, The general fund in Ojai was down to $700,000, not $7 million, $700,000. We had one month of cash flow left before the drain was dry.
Jim Vega at that time was visiting with banks trying to negotiate an emergency loan. Fortunately, the Ojai Valley Inn reopened at that point, and so the tap started a little bit, and we came back into the black slowly but surely. But that encounter with those financial difficulties was not without its ramifications, and the workforce was very severely impacted, as was our capital budget process.
Two years later, in 2023, Mr. Vega reported these impacts to the Budget Committee. And Mr. Johnston was there, in fact, I recall. And at that point, the Budget Committee decided to adopt the 100 percent reserve policy. So it was an adoption based on a near miss and a hope that it could not have that fate again. I have done a fair amount of financial analysis. That's what I did for a living, and I'm semi-decent at it. And I'm here to say that the trends that we have right now, and I've got paperwork to back it up if you're curious, show that we are probably going to dip below that 100 percent number, if not this coming year, then the next one, unless trends change very significantly. And it's conceivable in five years that it could be very significantly below 100%.
The weird thing is, I can't get anybody on the Council interested in this topic of a five-year financial forecast. I recognize that numbers are not everybody's top activity, but we need to focus on this at some point, or we'll wake up and suddenly it'll be, surprise, no Delta Fund, what are we going to use to do those fun things? Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Chad, rest please, and then Francine Castanon.
0:26 – 0:3412 turns
I'm here to second Ian's thoughts on what's happening with the approval of this pickleball tournament. I want to also point out that this pickleball community is spearheaded by one person, and I see that one person as our biggest problem. It's not a one-off event. It is the latest attempt by Mr. Kraut and his Pickleball Corporation to displace the Ojai tennis community from Libbey Park Tennis Courts. Mr. Kraut is continuing his efforts to take from our community for his own benefit.
He sought to take over Libbey Park Tennis Courts previously. Having been denied this, he then took over the City Hall Tennis Court. Having subsequently been denied this by public vote, Mr. O, he then took $600,000 of our taxpayers' dollars to build the new facilities at Silk Park dedicated to kickball. If this is not enough to satiate Mr. Proud's appetite, we see him once again trying to take Libbey Park Tennis Court, a team pointed out at borderlines on fetish.
Given this track record, we should consider Mr. Kraut's ultimate intention as nothing less than his attempt to take over parts of all of Luby Park tennis courts in perpetuity for the benefit of his Pickleball Corporation. I know that sounds extreme, but I believe that. I think the members of the OI tennis community also believe that. So, the ability for one greedy person to take, tear down, and remake public infrastructure for his own benefit is antithetical to a functioning democracy. A reminder that the beauty of public things, of which Libbey Park Tennis, for its first stellar example, comes from the continued protection of those things.
Libbey Park Tennis Courts and its ever-evolving tennis community are one of the long-standing pillars of Ojai's public identity. I should go without saying that we should continue, as our predecessors have, to protect it. Thank you. Thank you,
sir. And then Francine Castanon, please.
Hello. Hi, City Council. My name is Francine Castellan. I'm a resident of the city of Oxnard. I am a HUD certified counselor for the United States Department of Veteran Affairs. And I am here to say hi. Oh, hi. It's my interest. My hat's off to City Manager. I have seen gang fights less controversial than this pickleball tennis stuff. I have seen like seniors throw hands over this. I was like, my God, what the hell?
It was wow. I don't. I don't know what either sport is. I know there's a ball and a racquet involved. That is my level of expertise on that. I just know to run away from it. But I am here because I am a fifth-generation Oxnard resident. And you're like, what does that have to do with Ojai? I have been around to see Ojai through its glory days, through its controversial days in the late 90s, through its redevelopment funds, and seen the growth and development of Ojai, which has been very interesting to watch. So I study a lot of cities, a lot of counties. I've studied in Utah to learn the expertise. My area of expertise is from homelessness to home purchase.
So I help people from homelessness all the way up until home purchase. I do all of that and I am certified in between. So it's been interesting to see Ojai not only now get into housing, homeless services and other things, but you guys are kind of trending on a lot of it. There's 478 cities in California and 58 counties for those of you who don't know. And it's interesting how far you guys have come in such a small amount of time. In the last 10 years, how progressive you guys have come within regards to development, now addressing homeless issues. At one point, it was never an issue for Ojai. No one ever thought about it. When you went to the continuum of care meetings, there was no Ojai.
But one thing that comes with progression comes problems. And nobody likes to be the unpopular kid at the party. And unfortunately, you guys are faced with some controversial issues right now regarding housing. You have quite a few housing projects that people haven't digested well with. And there are other cities that I've worked with that also face the same problem.
Orange County was one of them. So my area, I cover five counties for the Department of Veteran Affairs. LA, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Slough, and Kern County. And then I extend sometimes to Orange County, which is the strangest place on earth. And at times, I venture into Riverside County. And I make those ventures very small. If you've ever been to Riverside County, don't stay long.
Orange County learned the hard way with their resistance. They had a lot of residents, a lot of people that were opposed to things, or I'm sure City Manager hears this every day, I know a better way, I know how to do it. I'm here for questions if you guys want more.
This will have to be at another time.
Yes, thank
you. But would you mind leaving your card?
Yes.
Okay, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. That's all of the public comment cards. I have anybody online?
Mayor, we do. I actually have Arts Commission Chair West. He wanted to give his commission report right now.
Great.
And then I have two other. Thank you. Go ahead, Chair West, unmute yourself.
Got it. You got me? Yeah. Okay, great. Good evening, Council. A few updates from the Arts Commission. Last week, we unanimously approved a new mural for the site of Poppies in town. Before it came to us, the proposal went through our volunteer mural jury. which included community members, artists, commissioners, and representatives from both the store and the building owner, Steve Sprinkle. We actually held that review meeting right there at the site of the artwork. Special thanks to Joe's Quick Stop for letting us borrow their parking lot for the gathering, and to our staff liaison, Bridget, for organizing the whole process so thoughtfully and efficiently.
It was a very Ojai way to review public art under our Ordinance 416, under the expertise direction of Commission Vice Chair Christine Steiner. We ran this through our bureaucracy, from planning to commission to jury, back to the commission in less than 80 days. We hope to continue to demonstrate how government, business, and artistry can collaborate efficiently, greasing the skids of our important creative economy.
We also welcome two outstanding new commissioners for this season, Carolyn Wagner and Bradley Tabak-Bank. We're incredibly lucky in this town that the people with real experience and insight continue to step forward and volunteer their time to help shape Ojai's cultural life. Thank you for appointing these excellent citizens and government servants. Your Arts Commission continues uninterrupted by vacancies for over two years now.
And finally, I just wanted to wish you well on tonight's housing discussion. The Arts Commission has been working with the Chamber, Ventura County, and folks up in Sacramento on the broader question of how we support a healthy, creative economy here in our valley. including safe and affordable housing, health care access, and basic infrastructure for the people who make this place what it is. So, in a way, tonight feels like a preview of some bigger conversations that are sure to be headed your way. We're cheering you on, and I'm going to watch the whole thing. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
0:34 – 0:3913 turns
We now have Larry Steingold and then Gina Shiraga. Gene Shiraga, I'm sorry. Thank
you.
Go ahead, Larry.
Good evening. I hope everybody's well. Two items. One is with the arcade and the walk-in freezer. I truly hope people can come to a resolution with the tenant so that our legal costs and other costs Regarding pickleball and tennis, if the sign says no pickleball, and that's the rule laid down by the City Council, then there's no pickleball. To carve out an exception for an international contest or some national game, that doesn't work.
Because now we're talking money and votes and everything else. Either change the rules or enforce them. It's one or the other. Thank you.
Thank
you. Have
a nice evening. Thanks, Larry.
Thank you, Larry. We now have Gene Sharga.
Thank you.
Sharaga. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Gene.
Yeah, hi. Good evening. I'm Gene Chiraga. I'm a city resident, and I have expertise regarding ADA compliance. I spent 32 years as a litigator, trial attorney involving ADA compliance, as well as the last eight years as a mediator. And I've been involved in about 50 different ADA matters. And we're talking here about barriers, And I'm going to connect this to the PSH, the location for the unhoused that, you know, still, I guess, pending for the maintenance yard.
And I've conducted, I conduct mandatory settlement conferences now for the Superior Court in Santa Barbara as well as the Ventura County Superior Court. A year ago, I sent an email to the City Manager, City Council, and the Mayor after walking through the whole area of Ventura Street, Santa Ana Street, and Blanche Street because of ADA accessibility issues that went beyond just what was going on at the PSH location in the kind of dust bowl of the maintenance yard.
And so in addition to the 325-foot ramp that made no sense and 30 steps, there were numerous barriers. In other words, not enough width in the sidewalk because of telephone poles, walls, mailboxes, and that email was ignored. And now it's my understanding, and it's probably the reason you did a feasibility study for 503 South Ventura Street, that there are accessibility issues that I raised, you know, for the maintenance yard.
And what's interesting now, and this is important, that Mr. Clay Creasy, who spoke before about something else, has submitted a new proposal for the location near Kent Hall, and it will allow for a smaller footprint, and you will get rid of the 325-foot ramp, you'll get rid of all these other problems, and there are no barriers, ADA compliance problems, to get to downtown Ojai by using Blanche Street. There was one problem there that I had raised a year ago, and that was subsequently corrected when Blanche Street was repaved. There was about a three-inch compliance problem that got Connected. I also want to point out one other thing that because this location involves the Green Coalition issues that the mayor and
city... Sorry, I did a little too early. I apologize.
That's okay. Is he gone?
0:39 – 0:4429 turns
He's still there.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead. Just give
us five seconds.
Okay, so basically what I'm pointing out is do a new feasibility study. You have the time. You've already done one for 503 South Ventura Street that you know doesn't work, and do one for the Kent Hall location again so that people who are unhoused actually can have a facility that allows them access to downtown Ojai. Thank you.
Thank
you, sir. Anybody else online?
Okay.
All right. We will move on to the consent calendar. Are there any items that any members would like to pull from consent? Okay. Okay. Anything else? Sorry guys, it's hard to hear. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, could I get a motion to approve 2, 4, 5, and 6? Let me just say, I do have one comment. Let me take the one comment first. Clay Creasy, please, on number 4, the Treasurer's Report.
Thank you, sir.
Very quick comment on the Treasurer's Report. That report is designed to inform you of the location of all the city's funds and the interest that you earn on those funds. It's nearly $40 million, as I recall. Currently, there's roughly $5.5 million or so, a little over $5 million of City funds that are currently I'm under the management of Dignity Move. When we paid our deposit back in June of last year, it was $5.9 million. It's a little over $5 million now.
They are required by the ERF contract, if they put that money in an interest-bearing account, to credit your ERF fund with the interest that's earned. They just filed their financial statements for last year a few days ago. I investigated those statements and determined that they have, in fact, invested those funds in interest earning account. That's the good news for us.
I guesstimate that it's about $140,000 so far that they've earned for us, or should have earned for us, and should be crediting to us. I suspect, given the hurly-burly of all the other things that we're worried about, that we probably haven't paid close attention to this, Somebody ought to reach out to Dignity Moves and say, we would like a monthly report that says where is that money and how much interest are we going to get credited because you could maybe buy a communal kitchen with that money if it actually worked out.
I want a clarification on that comment. The grant actually doesn't say exactly that. What it says is that interest earned must be applied towards the project. It doesn't say that it's credited towards the city's account. That's an important nuance. We're aware of where Dignity Moves holds that money. They've advised us of that, as well as how much they've earned and the interest rate that those funds attained.
Do you want to have a discussion about that item?
No, we can't have a discussion,
so
that's okay. Well, it is agendized. I don't need to have a discussion
about it. I'll have a discussion some other time. Could I have a motion then on 2, 4, 5, and 6? Unless there's anything online.
No, Mayor.
Okay.
I'll move to approve 2, 4, 5, and 6.
I'll second that. Any discussion? Okay, roll call, please.
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 move to approve 2, 4, 5, and 6. I'll second that. Any discussion? Okay, roll call,
Show transcript
So let's now look at number three.
Yeah, just a quick question on number three on page 16, second item down, check number 80295. It says survey work for OPSH project. I'm wondering why that is in our warrants and isn't in associated with the grant, because we generally don't see expenditures for the grant here. I mean, this seems to me to be something that came out of the soft costs of-
So, we do have some costs that do appear in the warrant that are items that we pay for, for the grant. So, for instance, legal fees, other technical studies, we have paid for those on our side, and those are allocated for in the ARF grant. This one should, I would agree, this should have a little asterisk that says grant reimbursable. This is just work to denote where the boundaries of the project fall.
It was mostly about how it was noted. Thank you.
Thanks for pointing that out. Anything else on number three? I make a motion that we accept consent item number three. Any second on that?
I'll second it.
Okay. Roll call, please.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 motion that we accept consent item number three. Any second on that? I'll second it. Okay. Roll call,
Show transcript
You came up here for nothing. That's okay. Stay close by. Okay, we'll move on then to our public hearing item number seven, the design review permit and tentative track map. It's Habitat for Humanity.
Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to wait for Mr. Seibert to get himself seated.
0:45 – 0:515 turns
Thank you.
Good evening, City Council, community. My name is Lucas Seibert. I'm the Community Development Director here for the City of Ojai. The item you have before you tonight is a design review permit and tentative track map for the consideration of the approval of a proposed five-unit, single-story, de-districted affordable housing project located at 408-410 North Montgomery Street.
The applicants are here tonight. They are RRM Design Group as well as Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County. What I'm going to do is I'm going to kind of set the table for some of the background and some of the discussion, and then I have representatives for Habitat as well as RRM Design Group. that have a PowerPoint, they're going to go through the project, as well as what Habitat does and what they provide in terms of the service overall. So just to give you and the Council just some understanding in terms of this project and really kind of the site in general, some history. I know it's in the staff report, but for the community and really kind of to just refresh the Council's memory, the site has been tied to City affordable housing goals really since 2010 as a part of really the housing element for the 4th, 5th, and now the 6th cycle that we had before us and that we're following moving forward all the way to 2029.
I think it's important to note also that this site actually has a deed restriction for affordability, and that's really tied to the fact that we took over this property as a part of co-compliance, because the units that were there in roughly 2010-2012, really when they were destroyed and demolished, Thank you. There was an understanding and kind of a task to try to find a way in which to put affordable housing on this site. That has been ongoing since 2012. We are now at 2026. So just understand that as a city-owned piece of property, there's been a lot of conversation, a lot of ideas. I know that Habitat will identify that When they started the conversation with the City in 2021-2022, there were different ideas and proposals that came before this body and for the community to kind of wrestle with, ranging from four to eight units.
You'll see some of that tonight. Overall, what you're seeing that's being brought forward tonight is five single-story units. Four of those units are being classified as tiny houses. They do qualify from a square footage standpoint and will be meeting the standards as it relates to building standards. So, there are specific building standards that are either ANSI or otherwise. You can follow building standards. There's a separate, I think it's chart AQ, through building code, that allows for substandard building standards that meet tiny home provisions. So basically, miniaturizing certain areas that are still meeting safety requirements and livability.
So the site itself is within, so I should identify some of the zoning pieces as a part of the setting table. The site itself is zoned R2, but is identified with an overlay of an SPL overlay with the housing element that allows for up to 20 units to the acre. Here on this site, because this is 0.2 roughly acres, it allows for up to four units, basically 4.09 units. We round that up to five. So really your floor for a site like this is five units.
You can look at it being less than that because it is a property that we own and have control over. But the reality is that the proposal that's before us tonight is for five units. This project actually went to City Council on several different occasions, but went before the Planning Commission on two. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Planning Commission actually took action on that resolution with one small caveat, which was to really kind of marry each of those units to each of the parking spaces that are identified on site. And that really kind of, rather than saying, this is the understanding, it's really putting in words and in writing the limitations to each of those units. Those units are smaller in size. You're looking at unit sizes of 400 to 800 square feet.
And I know the applicants will speak to that a little bit more. But I wanted to just kind of set the table for tonight. I do know that I think Darcy, as well as Lauren, are going to get up here and speak as it relates to the project as a whole. And I see the PowerPoint's up as well. So with that, I'll pause my comments at this point, kind of set the table for discussion.
Please. Thank you.
We're inviting them to present
now. That's what I was hearing. Yes. Okay. Come on up. I know you've done this a million times. Thank you for that.
0:51 – 0:591 turns
Alright, so I'm Darcy Taylor. I'm the CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County. Been the CEO for going on eight years. We brought this project to City Council, I want to say six years ago. We've gone through a number of changes from when James was the City Manager and that whole process there. But a couple things we want to share with you today is that are part of the... A couple things that are important for you to know as we kind of move through this real quickly is that Habitat for Humanity is the only builder in the county that builds low-income housing.
Many of you know of a number of organizations within the county that build low-income, low-low-income housing for, they're designed for rental. But we build for sale. Affordable home ownership opportunities are strictly for low-income. We try to build for families because we know that that's an important part of our process as well. No-cost critical health and safety for our seniors and veterans that are part of another program we have.
We believe that if we can keep somebody in their house by repairing the house, that allows for them to stay in a safe place to live. But we have other opportunities for them to do that. They can work in our offices, they can work in one of our stores in the county. There's a lot of ways for our homeowners to put sweat equity. And we do that because we believe not only in building units, we want to build communities. There's something about when people build units together, they build a community together. So these are neighbors that will be together We're proud to say we only take about 10% in government funding in all of our projects, and we have an average of over 1,000 plus volunteers that work with our programs every year.
This is our 40-year anniversary. We're proud to say that we've built 85 homes. We've had 23,000 supporters. We've had over 400 home repairs and 152 first-time home buyers that are part of our Habitat program in our 40-year existence. I want to show you a couple of designs here that kind of give you a flavor for what we built. Here's a few examples of the houses that we've built recently.
The first is our First and Hayes. These are our six single-family homes. I think they're beautiful. And then we have Berry Street One. which has two homes, we call these our Miami home. These are two-story units that share in the back, on a back alley, a shared garage area. And then we have our beach houses. Which is San Pedro and Port Wayne. Those are five townhomes that were built.
Our first construction project that actually connected units. Typically we build standalone units, but With density and other things, we have found that building townhomes and those kind of units give us an opportunity to put more units on properties and RRM and lower incomes and shares. We've kind of moved in that direction. The only problem is dealing with HOAs, which are very complicated, related to the product that we deliver and the clients that we have. And then the most recent one, we just finished eight units at Vista Campanera that is part of a project with the Area Housing Authority. They built 57 rental units and we built eight four-stallion. The key for us is we're here for a partnership with the City of Ojai.
Applications will, and this is something that's very important, I think we've I don't say I confuse people. I'm pretty straightforward, but our applications will be open to low-income people. Families who reside in Ventura County, we only build in the county, with a priority for people who live or work in Ojai. And the City Council can design it that way, so that we get as many people into our units that are on this property that live or work in the City of Ojai. opportunity for and we are committed to the senior community of the county as well as veterans.
We want to provide opportunities for them as well and that's kind of the focus of the the process of the application. Eligibility requirements are low-income homes or families, according to HUD, which has certain limits and guidelines, willing to commit to sweat equity, demonstrate a need for safe, decent, affordable housing, which is part of the application process. We go out and visit the places that they're currently living in to ensure that they're in need of the type of houses that the cost we build as part of that process. And then obviously one of the things that we always say when we talk about Habitat is that we strongly believe that we want people to pay an affordable mortgage.
You know, the last units we built in Camarillo, their market value is about $680,000. Those homeowners will pay, their mortgages are $250,000. With grants, first-time homebuyer funding and so forth, they'll probably get a mortgage somewhere in the range of $180,000 to $200,000. So the monthly payment of about $900,000. I know, I don't know about you, But I live in the city of Camarillo, off of Pleasant Valley, and my mortgage is not anything close. So the whole program is designed with the idea of providing a safe place that's affordable, that they can be assured of living in for an extended period of time.
We are excited. I mean, obviously, I can say that with all honesty, because I keep coming back. We're excited to work with the City Manager and his staff and partner with the City on this project. You know, we've looked through some of the documents. We've sent some of the changes to the City Manager. They're minor. We've had our law firm reviewing some of that. I'm sure that tonight's discussion will also review some other things that we may want to examine as part of that process. But our goal is to work with the City On how the land transfer question can be addressed and give us an opportunity to build these homes for future Ojai residents, that they can take pride in and responsibility in living in those homes and taking care of those homes.
So we really appreciate your leadership in giving us the opportunity. Our long-term goal is to have this be the first product that we bring to the city with a hope of bringing many more products that are very similar to what we do. With that, I want to have Lauren come up, our partner who has been with me since the very beginning, our RM, and with designing the project.
Thank you all very much.
0:59 – 1:086 turns
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor, Council. Thank you for having us back again. First of all, I have to say I really do feel it's an honor to be able to work with Habitat for Humanity, the good work that they do in not only providing affordable, quality housing, but also housing that has the opportunity to change the lives of homeowners. I really appreciate the work of both Mr. Harvey and Mr. Seibert in helping us to move this project along. This is a collaborative effort and it's a unique opportunity. It's rare that I work on a project where both the City and Habitat are the clients.
Part of that process has been a little bit more lengthy, just in the nature of how that goes, but nonetheless, it's a unique opportunity. I'm grateful for that and grateful for your stewardship on the resource that this property is, an opportunity to provide affordable housing for Ojai. So just a slide you're looking at now is just a little bit of context of the neighborhood, some single-story and two-story structures, a mix of retail, churches, and then also residents, and then also some existing affordable housing.
So this is, for those that may have not seen the other iterations, this is kind of how we got to where we're at today. The first option that we proposed or project is on the far left, and we're going to work our way to the right. We came with Three units, three-bedroom, two-bath townhomes with a two-car garage with single access. And Habitat's sweet spot for most of their family housing is three-bedroom, two-bath. They find that it allows families to grow, to change, provides some room and space that they need.
So that's kind of where we start when we look at opportunities with Habitat for Humanity. City Council directed us, you know, that's not enough. This is a unique resource. It's a unique opportunity. We need to be able to provide more housing. And so the second option, the craftsman in the middle, we eliminated the rear access drive, common drive aisle. We opted for one-car garages, and we provided a single parking space in the driveway to augment that. and still three-bedroom, two-bath units.
And then the last option that we see on the screen, it was brought to our attention that Ojai has a unique need. They have many seniors that have a lack of affordability and not many options for housing in the community. And so that's where we landed. We proposed the tiny homes, homes that would be comfortable for one or two people, and looked at Leveraging the location. It's a unique opportunity. There's two trolley stops within 600 feet of the site.
It's walkable to downtown. So we're like, well, let's look at what we can do if we stop designing around the car and look at providing homes rather than parking spots. We did receive some feedback on that and we landed on a compromise. We provided parking. There's six parking spaces as well as six bicycle storage lockers to also leverage the Ojai Valley Bicycle Trail and that connectivity.
And we toned down the unit count. The all-tiny home project was eight units. We brought it down to five. We have two tiny home duplexes that are towards the rear property line, and then a two-bedroom, one-bath home, modest, just about 900 square feet. I appreciate Mr. Seibert's description on the zoning. Based on the calculation, the zoning calculation works out to five units being allowed.
With the state of housing in the state of California, we've got some oncoming legislation. In fact, it's alphabet soup. There's so many, it's hard to keep track of everything that's coming forth. Yeah, I see Lucas' face. It's a lot to keep track of. But, so one of the things that the state density bonus law allows is for projects like these where we have 100% affordable Housing, we're able to double the density. So under current state law, by right, 10 units would be allowed. And so that's a lot.
And again, we're in a unique opportunity where we both have the city as a client, as well as Habitat. And so I'm trying to find a balance that is sympathetic to the context and fits with the community. In part of the design and the site design, we tried to hold typical single-family home setback standards, so our side yards and rear yards are about five feet, which is typical of what you would see in a single-family home neighborhood, and then a slightly larger setback on the street frontage, as well as our parking placed as what would be typical of a driveway location. While we don't provide covered parking, we do have our parking located in what would be a typical curb-cut driveway situation in a single-family neighborhood.
And then also what that allows us to do is to provide some common semi-private space in the courtyard organization with the landscape there. Councilmember Patterson? We end up with lap siding and our style that we decided to pursue in similarity to the neighborhood is ranch craftsmen, referencing kind of the agricultural, rural style that is found throughout Ojai. And so we end up with lap siding, board and batten, and a mixture of subtle paint colors.
And then here is the last elevations on the interior yard, so sides that wouldn't be seen visible from the street. And that concludes our presentation. So we're here for questions. Thank you.
Any questions so far? Yeah, I got lots of questions. Yeah,
please.
Well, try to give us a couple, then we'll go around.
Yes, so the first one is we have an ordinance that gives priority to local residents for affordable housing. And I saw on the frequently asked questions there's a statement that the city has the ability to establish a priority list if the city is involved and is contributing resources to the project. I guess my question is, does the donation of the land constitute contributing resources to the project so that we can play a big role in setting up the priority criteria?
1:08 – 1:2431 turns
I'm going to give that to the City Attorney if you don't mind me listening to that question.
I was, I think that that would be, I mean from my perspective, I think that may be a question ultimately that Habitat would need to answer. From my perspective, contribution of land would be a contribution to the project.
I want to support that. I'm very interested in that contribution as well, and it solves a lot of problems that come up with the project.
Well, to be clear though, I mean, under any formulation of the project, whether it's the city providing the land through a ground lease or some other arrangement,
And then I guess I'll make my my next question Sort of related there's there's mention in here about our $600,000 housing fund which I understand is the remnants of our redevelopment agency and I'm I wasn't really understanding where the money would fit into this project, and I'm actually kind of jealous towards the idea that maybe the $600,000 could be used for yet another project.
And so, I guess my question, I wasn't clear, is that fund needed for this project, or is the Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was under the impression that we were required or contemplating draining that account for this project, but Lucas, correct me if I'm not remembering things.
Yeah, so it came up during Planning Commission, I think in the first meeting, and they asked the question, how much is left in the fund? So it wasn't a matter of, hey, let's obligate. It's like, hey, what the question was, is how much do we actually have? So
it's just a piece of information? Correct. It's not?
Correct. It was a part of the FAQ that we ended up doing the deeper dive to get
it sorted. I got it. Thank you. Any other
questions
so far?
I guess I'll go, you go, and
then I'll go. Yes, I had two questions. I see that in the FAQ there was the stop sign, that there was a response to the stop sign, and so I just wanted to point it out for anyone who isn't aware, hasn't read all the documents, that that would go through Public Works. Am I correct in saying that? Correct. Okay, great. Thank you. I just wanted that on the record.
And then also, one other question that I had come up was with regard to communal areas. You laid them out, and I'm really excited about that in terms of having everyone have a sense of having a community with their neighbors. Who's responsibility is it to take care of those communal areas or to do the landscaping, things like that?
There'll be an HOA that will be responsible for that. You want to elaborate on that a little bit?
I would actually prefer to have either, probably Darcy come up and speak to that. Better yet. That point.
Can I address all those four questions? Is that permissible? No? The land does count as a, as a contribution. Obviously, so if that is the way the City Council goes, that does count as a contribution. So, that's, that's cool. Second question was, we'll take all the money we can get from the City. And we're glad you asked the question about the stop sign because that is something that we looked at and was part of the discussion, you know, who's going to be responsible for the study. You know, Lucas and I have talked about that and how that gets formulated into an actual plan is something that public works will have to deal with.
The HOA. The State of California's Real Estate Association is very difficult to work with. And the reason we don't like HOAs is the fact that the way that it works is it's a formula. So you put a bunch of numbers and calculations into a formula and it spits out a number. It doesn't differentiate between a low-income project versus a for-profit project. And the best way I could describe it is the one we just finished in Camarillo, the eight units, we put all the numbers into the calculation, and the HOA fee for the low-income families living in those eight units was going to be $517 a month.
Right? So, if you just look at the numbers, right? You look at the fact that their mortgages are, in some cases, less than $1,000. You're now asking them to pay another $517 on top of the process. So, we really don't like to get involved with the Real Estate Association of the State of California. The way we work around that, there's a couple of ordinances that have come into existence in the last two years that gives low-income builders an opportunity to bypass that process.
If you develop CC&Rs and maintenance agreements that are designed around covering those common areas, and I'll be transparent with you, every city has the right to declare David David Sterling, which gives the city the right to require an HOA, but it doesn't dictate how that HOA can be designed. All of our habitat properties that we shared with you are under CC&Rs and maintenance agreements that are designed with that very thing in mind so that the grass gets cut, that the plants get watered, the sidewalks are maintained. All those things are in the CC&Rs that each homeowner signs and is obligated to under the agreement that we have with the City.
All that is part of the maintenance agreement and the roofing that's tied to their living areas. So that's the way we work it, and Habitat monitors that on an ongoing basis. Like, we'll drive around, you know, make sure people are not, like, parking on the yard, you don't see barbecue grills on the front porches and those kind of things. We monitor that as part of the maintenance agreement that we develop with each homeowner in the process of the mortgage. And that goes into the mortgage agreement that they sign for their lint as well.
Mr. Taylor, I heard you speaking at the Planning Commission those two times as well, but In terms of the land being leased versus Habitat owning the land as part of the sale, is it unique or unusual that a city would maintain the ownership of the land?
Yeah, I think that's a great question, Mayor. The question is really about the city's desire to keep the land affordable. Really, that's really what it's about. And I'll be transparent on this as well. Most of our homeowners do not live the full term of the agreement. Because now in the state of California, cities can dictate 55 years on mortgage agreements to keep that property low income.
Right? So if we sell to someone who's 55, Well, you know, you do the math. And if they sell prior to that termination of that 50-year agreement, the number starts all over again. So the new tenant has a 55-year agreement that starts on day one. And so really what the lease that the city's talking about is really tied to how long you want that land to be affordable.
But I will say this, if Habitat does not own the land, then we are not responsible for the maintenance and the care of the property that is not purchased by the homeowners. So all the homeowners would be responsible for is the structure. Because we don't, you know, Habitat does not own the land. We're not responsible for that. But if we own the land or the land is donated by the City with whatever restrictions or requirements you may put on that donation, then yes. We will draft a CC&R agreement and a maintenance agreement to make sure that that care and maintenance is taken care of.
The two questions I was going to add, I also highly favor the stop signs, just to register that publicly. And then the other thing I want to ask is, Mr. Sarver, you mentioned this, the five units on the property allow exemptions, if I understood you correctly, that four would not by right. So tell us about that. So we hear in the public conversations like, well, let's try for four. Can we do four? Give them the same exemptions.
So describe that process, please.
I know you've done it like 10 times. Andrew Whitman It's the same question that came up, I think, at the second meeting for Planning Commission. And the only option that I could really fathom, because so the density bonus allows for projects that are five or more with a project like this that qualifies for the full range of density bonus provisions within state law.
If you drop it down to four, the floor is five. So you drop it down to four, it no longer qualifies as an affordable housing project, as density bonus would perceive it. So all of the concessions that you're seeing here tonight for consideration before this body are off the table, because those are no longer concessions. Now they become a part of a variance, essentially.
And I will tell you, and I think the community hears the variance and they're super scared, right? Because it sounds like something that's almost insurmountable. The qualifications and the justification for the findings for a variance are strict, and they're strict for a very good reason. So that when projects come forward that are outside the boundaries of what you normally see are unique, maybe the property has a unique shape to it, maybe there's some weird slope situations that are happening, those begin to fall into a category of a variance proceeding having grounds.
This property is flat. It is rectangular, if I would be bare to even say square in shape. Those two litmus test pieces don't even fall close to that parameter. So then you begin to ask the question, are there other areas within our municipal code that would allow for some of these deviations? And through our code, there are none. That is the mark that you could use for our code.
So if I'm understanding correctly, what you're saying is, is that the density bonuses that are allowed are not easily given if you do not have the density bonus allowances. The variance is not, you just can't simply decide to give a variance. There's a criteria you have to go through, there's a decision-making process, and it's It's not as easy to...
Variances are not easy. They're set up not to be easy. You're looking for unique circumstances that exist.
Also procedural justice. If you give out variances too much, then there's no code.
Right, or if you say, well, it would be easier for us to take the variance and, you know, then you are procedurally cutting corners, really.
Yeah, there is a provision in our code that through the variance process that specifies that each variance is held on its own. You can use it as previous variances as a way for the evaluation. But the provisions within the code actually say you hold them independent of each other. So you could argue with a variance of this nature. If there was a way in which to make the findings, it wouldn't necessarily be something you'd use a platform. You would probably have a discussion about it and to say, geez, this was used in this characteristic for the following reasons. Does that apply for this property over here? Let's take a look at the merits.
I
have a couple of questions along those lines. I'm assuming that the variances would involve
density and setbacks. Density is not included as a part of it. No? That is the one thing that it does not include. It's setbacks, right? So, just for
setbacks. Yes. So, is there anything about the fact that we're attempting to create long-term affordable housing And, you know, the idea, I think the state's got any number of proclamations that there's an emergency situation and the ability to provide affordable housing, and then we're using variations in the setback requirements in order to achieve that essentially emergency situation of providing affordable housing.
Absolutely. You could use that, but just keep in mind that the first two provisions within the variance talk about and speak to the physicality of the property. You get past those two, the piece that you're talking about really fits into consistency with the general plan, existing regulations, absolutely. You could talk paragraphs about it more than likely, but all of them have to be made.
1:24 – 1:3534 turns
I wanted to get the City Attorney's view on that as well.
Yes, and I apologize for looking at my phone. I was looking up the variance ordinance provisions to make sure I could answer that question. I anticipated it coming. So under the City's Zoning Code, it's Section 10-2.2606. The Planning Commission must make findings, as Mr. Seibert mentioned, that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, which are basically the physical characteristics of the property, as well as for purposes of granting the variance that there The variance is needed for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other property in the vicinity, does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the parcel, And, but here's the kicker, is that it's been and would not be inconsistent with the general plan.
So it has to meet all of those criteria. This project may meet all of those criteria. I don't know that that's been evaluated in depth. I would look to- It has not been evaluated in depth. So that's something we would have to take back and look at to see if the concessions and incentives that were requested Under the density bonus law, if it would meet those requirements, if a variance were requested.
And just as a point of clarification, three of the concessions were related to setbacks. So reductions in the minimum front setback, reduction in the minimum side setback, and the rear setback, and then the other two concessions were related to One of them was for minimum lot width reduction and then minimum lot size reduction. But under your variance ordinance, those kinds of variances are all things that a variance could be granted for if the review criteria are met.
And then kind of a related question. And I'm not, I have no idea how this law works, but there's just kind of a general concept. You take a lot, and there's a law that allows you to subdivide it, and there's a law that allows you to put both a house and an ADU on that, on each of those split lots. So, is there a way to use that in order to get four units?
So, you're speaking to SB 9? SB 9. Yeah. Right.
I just, I was gonna say it wrong, so I didn't say it.
It does allow you to do a one-time lot split, and then by doing that, you could create, I think there was even a conversation that I had before, not necessarily this Council, but a previous Council, as it relates to the number of units that you could perceivably have. So, when you do that lot split, you can have two main houses and then two ADUs. So, you could potentially have four.
And could you avoid the setback issues by doing that or would they still be there? Yeah,
the setbacks become whatever the setbacks are identified through the SB regulations, which are significantly reduced. So, ADU law already has Thank you. Thank you. We've had a couple of them.
Yeah, so what I'm hearing is there is a desire both from the community and it seems also from this council to at least have a discussion on whether or not it is possible to decrease the units from five to four. And I'm in no way saying I favor it or don't or I know somebody does or I know somebody doesn't, but it has been concern from the community, the residents. So I think it's worth having a discussion. Is it possible to do Without, you know, giving up what we can't give up. You know, giving up something that we can't get in some other way.
Your most creative thinking, if you wanted to think of it that way. I'm just
saying, because the community is
very
interested in this and I don't
want to not address it.
Yeah, it's the same conversation. It's a part of the FAQ piece that came forward. Could you could you perceivably reduce it from five to four? You could. I think in the first conversation, when it came forward with the Planning Commission as a discussion item, I leaned in and said, geez, let's find a way in which this five to four works. But seeing that the density bonus piece is now off the table, and now it puts and straps the council or even planning commission in that case, in terms of how the code reads.
Basically on the hook for the variance. The first finding that the city attorney just mentioned is, while it sounds simple in terms of how it's read, it really is looking at the characteristics that exist for that piece of property.
Yeah, and I think that's a discussion to have. I think there is a procedure, there are procedural things that we follow because, you know, they are procedure. And so I'm not in any way suggesting that we Overlook them, but just to have a deep dive into them so that we can have an informed discussion. And when we make a decision, we can say we made the decision for these reasons and we were able to look at all of the considerations.
So yeah, that's what I would like to do because it's a decision to be made just generally. Five is probably better than four, but we've heard from the community that that would change the nature for them of their community. And so we have to seriously, I have to seriously consider that. Number one, they're my constituents. Number two, I completely understand what they're saying, so.
Yeah, Ms. Lange.
I actually have a question for Darcy. Sorry about that. Oh, no, no, no, no, it's okay. No, no, this is great. Actually, your inquiry made me think of this. When, okay, so we're looking at the tiny, each tiny home unit is 398 square feet, I believe. How many, typically, how many people, like, is it a couple? Is it usually, do we have two people living in that space or one person living in that space?
Yeah, it varies. It varies. Typically, the way we've designed it is for two. Two people can live in comfortably. And the way that these units are designed, obviously they're self-sufficient, washers, dryers, it's all part of that. Previous council also requested that we look at 100% electrical, which is part of the design as well. So typically it's two. I did want to make one question, or actually two, response.
Well, to everybody. Also, the key element for us, the density bonus obviously is a parking question that, you know, is really how Lucas and us have kind of worked through that problem. But when you go from five to four, you take this project out of a low-income category, which, for us, at Habitat, will cost us a half a million dollars. So I just want to, again, you know me, I'm honest and transparent.
And it's important to have all of the data before
a decision is made. Exactly. And so, you know, the goal is to have, you know, we have already worked with the County of Ventura. raising a significant amount of money for the project, but once you move into that category, that's a whole different area of resources that is available for us as a low-income builder to access a project like that.
Mr. Taylor, so that increasing cost that you just mentioned, would that get passed on to the mortgage cost of the four that live there? In other words, I'm trying to respond to what you just said. If you moved from five to four and now we lose that designation and it costs you half a million dollars, costs Habitat, does that increase in cost then move to the mortgage cost for the people
moving in? Well, that's a great question. We would, to be honest with you, we'd have to reevaluate whether or not The project for us is feasible. Because we are, the truth is, we build at a loss because we can't make a profit. Our bylaws do not allow us to build for profit. So when you take $500,000 out of a project that we've already got a commitment from the county for, that becomes part of the
gap.
And we have to determine as the builder whether or not Adding our own $500,000 into that project is worth the concept of the build. Now, in all fairness, you got $600,000. If you want to give me $500,000 of that, I'm game.
So just to follow up on this, the county criteria for the funding that they're going to contribute requires a minimum of five units.
Yes, to qualify as a low, yeah, exactly.
That's important information.
Yeah, it is.
I also want to be conscious that you guys have designed this already six times, it looks like, and I'm not interested in a redesign now, exactly.
Parking if we say just if we had
the
five units and then the larger
unit would have two spots but then out of that so that would be a total of six spots but out of the six would one be for
handicapped
1:35 – 1:4027 turns
One is required to be accessible.
And then what happens if we have more than one resident that's handicapped?
We can look at the drive aisle, and typically when we have multiple accessible parking stalls, we'll put the striping between the two stalls to ensure that both of those stalls are accessible for both residents.
So you would you would modify based on the occupancy? We rework out
the site layout. Yeah,
absolutely.
And then just one thing it's probably it's the way I read it on page 76 number 4. The applicant is prohibited from using any portion of the project site for short-term transient or vacation rentals for any period of time less than one calendar month. That's
a Darcy question.
Darcy, help me out here.
That's a great question. So in the CC&Rs, there are a number of guidelines and rules that are required to manage the property. For example, in the CC&Rs, we set the number of people who can live in the unit. We also set, in the CC&Rs, who can live in the unit. The CC&Rs will not allow you to rent a room and have that as extra income. You can't turn a garage into a living space. All those things are written in the CC&Rs. In this particular build, the maximum number of occupants is two.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, five people living in a tiny home. Or, you know, that's because, first of all, it's unsafe. And second of all, the home is not designed to hold that many occupants and be safe.
So, related question. Can we require that the person who applies for and receives the low-income mortgage is actually the occupant of the property. In other words, they can't then turn around and rent it out to somebody
else. Yeah, the CC&R has covered that too. The actual owner of the property has to live in the structure.
So that one-month concept, it doesn't really
apply. But they can. They could. Say they move in in December, and then they realize they've been in the unit for three months, this isn't working out. They can move. Right. Right. They can sell it to another low-income. Right. But they cannot move to Texas and then rent that apartment or that tiny home to somebody else. That's right. Including a relative. Correct.
And you're monitoring that. And we're, oh yeah.
Yep. Could we see those CC&Rs? Absolutely. And there was another document that I was interested in and now I can't find what the one was, but I would like to see the CC&Rs and
The Affordable Housing Agreement?
Pardon me?
There's a provision in the resolution, and I believe it's item number 30, which speaks to the Affordable Housing
Agreement.
Do you have the page number on that at the bottom right? Page 83. 84? 83. Oh, thank you. Thank
you.
Thank you very
much.
Thank you.
The resale agreement, though, is a document that the City Attorney puts together with Habitat. So that's a combo agreement that is designed around the City's requirement for the 55 years and what that 55 years will detail.
Thank you. Yeah, I'll go to public comments now. All right. Christopher Williams, please, John Trent, and then Heidi Whitman. Hello.
1:40 – 1:5124 turns
Good evening, Council Members. My name is Christopher Williams, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Ojai Valley Association of Realtors in support of Habitat for Humanity. Darcy. At the heart of what realtors do is helping people achieve the dream of homeownership. Homeownership creates stability, strengthens neighborhoods, and encourages long-term investment in our community.
In a place like Ojai, where housing costs continue to rise, projects like this create responsible and attainable pathways for home ownership. We believe efforts like this help build not just houses, but a stronger and more resilient community. Thank you for their consideration.
Thank you, sir. John Trent, please, and then Heidi Whitman.
I'm going to first read a letter from one of my neighbors because she wasn't able to make it. She can't dial in. So she says, Dear Council Members, I'm a 10-year resident of 404 Franklin. I'm in favor of affordable housing. A complex of affordable housing is currently behind her home with an entrance on North Montgomery Street. She says she urges you to reconsider proposal project by Habitat and iron out some of the concerns that were brought up tonight before you move forward with approval on this project. She listened to the Planning Commission meeting, understands and recommends approval based on this project, but the Planning Commissioners, she said, don't live in the area.
Not all considered ramifications were included, so she would like to ask the following. Limit the project to no more than four single-story residents, similar to the rentals that are right across the street. Any vehicles serving the residents to enter and exit on North Montgomery, Franklin's very narrow street, where parking is prohibited. It's hard to navigate under the best circumstances, especially in waste pickup days and stuff like that.
She wants no construction to be on Franklin, no cars related to construction on Franklin while the project's underway. She said erect a three-way stop sign at the intersection of North Montgomery and Franklin. There's some red painted curves to the south, but it's still nearly impossible to exit. And she said it should be clear on who's responsible for maintaining the land around the project, the maintenance, et cetera. Is this the responsibility of the city, or is it the responsibility of Habitat for Humanity?
She said, the process to make this a livable, affordable housing complex has been a long one. But she said, please don't be hasty in your decision making until these concerns are addressed. So I just wanted to read that to you guys. And then I just had a couple quick ones while I have a minute left. So yeah, just in general, we're not opposed to affordable housing. We like Habitat for Humanity. We think what they do is great.
We just want something that's appropriate for the lot size. So, you know, there's a lot of details I feel like that need to be called out in the resolution that I don't know. I know you guys brought up some of them. But, like, I would love to see the stop sign in there. That's a critical piece for us. I would love to see some description on who takes care of the maintenance. If it's a 99-year lease and it's owned by the City, who takes care of the common ground? Darcy mentioned that they probably won't do that.
I also want to know, who pays the property tax on a 99-year lease? Is that going to be the property owners, or is that going to be the City, or is that going to be something different? Also, when can they rent them out? That was also brought up. What is that timeline? Darcy mentioned a lot about the CC&Rs. I'd like to see those. They should be in the resolution. The resolution should be kind of ironclad. There's just a lot of questions in there.
And then when they do sell the property, do they have to sign a new 99-year lease with the City of Ojai, the new people coming in? How does that work from a mortgage perspective? Because they need to know.
Can
I just ask a quick question for clarification? Is
it 55 years or 99? So under California law, municipalities, I know a 99 lease was what was originally discussed with council. Our office did look at this and under California law, municipalities are prohibited from leasing city owned property for more than 55 years.
Thanks. Good clarification. Heidi Whitman, please. Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor Gilman and members of the City Council. I love this project. I love Habitat for Humanity. However, since it's the first of its kind in the city and even maybe in Ventura County, I think it's important to get the details right. Your decision to keep the land will make this affordable for a very long time. And so I applaud that decision. But the details are really important and you can't work them out later.
Some of them, for me listening tonight, include who gets to live there, because I still don't think that that is really clear. Is it seniors? Is it workers? Is it people that live elsewhere now? Is it people that live here now? Who's going to maintain the common areas? And I will share that typically these types of projects are maintained with a tiny parcel assessment that's collected on the tax rolls because these people will still pay property taxes for their homes. They just won't pay it on a house and land. They'll just pay it on the house.
So I think that some of these things, because we've never done it before, we haven't really looked at how other people successfully do this. So I also think that because the property has an SPL on it, it might solve your problems with the four units versus five units, and also the tiny house regulations that you have. And once again, because you own the land, I think it's making some of this a bigger conversation, and so it's important to keep the details going.
And finally, I just ask that you please require a deed restriction on these, whatever you decide to do. I'm not convinced that you need to split the land into five even little or tiny parcels. It's funny that you have another project tonight where you're talking about a 0.2 acre property, and here on this one, you can't even decide four or five. So, I love this project, but please work out the details before approving it. And I would just like to propose that Mr. Trent chair a tiny committee to figure this out. Because who better to know what some of the issues are than the neighborhood? He's a respected former Planning Commissioner and Planning Commission Chair.
I bet you he'd be willing to do it. So I think that instead of putting this back on staff, I think that it could be worked out, and maybe this is a model for how we do things in the future. Thanks very much. Thank
you. Thank you. Okay, Francine Castanon, it looks like. Yes.
Okay, last time I promised. I was trying to leave.
No, thanks.
It didn't work out. You got me all intrigued. So I do the home buyer class for Habitat for Humanity clients. PITI, Property or Principal Interest Taxes and Insurance, is any mortgage. Anybody who's ever had a mortgage, that's how it works. They pay property tax. These projects have made it through Oxnard. These projects have made it through South Central. These projects have made it through San Francisco.
Not necessarily them, but they have gone through the most controversial places in California. Texas had one. There was one I went and helped in Atlanta. The family didn't know how to settle back in. These are families that have suffered so much, that have been through so much, and they now have an opportunity of stability that most people in this room can afford anytime. Any one of you can walk into a mortgage place. I like to buy a home. I live in Ojai. You guys, your average home price over here is $9.75.
The average home price in California is $890,000. Who thought we were going to pay $490,000 in
Bakersfield?
$570,000 in Pacoima. $980,000 in Inglewood. Did not see that on my bingo card. What you have to understand is Habitat puts a lot of work into what they do, and the restrictions for the applicants is far beyond what any mortgage company HUD puts on. They are above and beyond that. What a family has to go through to qualify. The programs they have to go through. They have to go through the home buyer class. They have to go through the mortgage process. They have to go through everything times ten than any traditional buyer.
And it's not easy. And they can't resell it. They can't rent it out. They can't Airbnb it. They can't do any of that with those projects. They will lose the house. They will lose their mortgage. And they will be ineligible ever for a mortgage again. So if you lose a mortgage, you have to wait a certain amount of time, depending on how you lost your mortgage.
For Habitat for Humanity, they're no longer eligible. And the amount of restrictions that they have to go through just to qualify, not to mention the wait list, It's enormous. Camarillo, Oxnard, that they've done in the county so far, not to mention East County. Look at Moorpark, everything they go through in Moorpark. That's another one. I would be able to walk faster down the 33 back to Ventura barefoot than some of the regulations that they have forward right now they have to go through to qualify for these properties.
So they do their due diligence. They do their homework. And I enjoy doing the homebuyer class for them. It's an eight hour class I have to give to educate and certify someone to say they are mortgage ready. And I'm putting my name on it. You're damn straight. They're ready for a mortgage. So thank you.
Thank you. That's the last card I have, anybody online? Mayor.
Oh yes, please, go ahead, Mr. Severin. The PITI, I was curious what that program was that she just mentioned.
Ma'am, would you
mind coming up just for one second? What does that stand for
again? Yeah, what's the question?
PITI, what does that stand
for again?
So, Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance. And I have a home buyer class this Saturday at mywayhome.org that you can attend for free.
I love classes, yes. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Leslie Rule
1:51 – 1:579 turns
It seems like we got solid support on council. The community likes it. And the only kind of question or concern is, let's get all the details on the table before we approve, address the resolution so that everything that we're wanting to make sure is going to be in this project is approved. So I kind of like the idea of having a committee that works through those details with staff, with Habitat, so that everything's spelled out next time it comes back to us, hopefully soon, and it gets a quick approval.
Ms. Rule?
I'm unclear on what the details are. Is it a priority list of how you decide the residents? That's the only one I really heard because
I would make a suggestion
that would consider giving the land to Habitat so we don't have this whole, who's going to take care of it, who's going to drive by, who's going to be responsible for it, is it going to be somebody in the city? That seems to me to be way cumbersome, and it's not Habitat's model, not that they're not willing to adjust their model, they are, but it makes a whole bunch more sense. Those would be details that we would need to work out, that we have the experts who deal with those as, you know, Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. And then it's like somebody's speeding. So I completely understand the safety element and support it 100%. So that's kind of where I'm sitting. As far as a priority list of who gets selected, I think that's going to be a balancing act of, you know, what are their needs? How much money do they make? What size of the property do they want? And once again, Do I trust Habitat to make those evaluations that they make standardly? I do. I mean, as long as we have the consideration that, you know, these properties will be sold to Ojai residents or those who want, who work here and would like to relocate here, thereby taking a commuter off the road.
I trust, once again, I trust Habitat, I mean, with their 40-year history. You know, so to me, I don't see all of the loose ends.
I would support that 100%. Yeah, my concern is that we currently own the property, and then if we give it up, then we no longer own it, and we have very little to say if things don't go in the direction we want it to be. And the model for housing trusts right now, or at least the ones that are really successful, The trust retains the property while the homeowner owns the structure and to me that makes sense and that would be my I actually would love to have our City Attorney's thoughts about this because I think
I've done some research on this and also listening to the Planning Commission meeting and just thinking about it and wanting to make this right call, but from what I have read, Am I correct in saying that it's harder for an individual to get a mortgage, like for one of the Habitat residents to get a mortgage if they don't own the land? Does that affect their ability to move into the space?
The item before you tonight is, I want to make sure that it's clear, that the item before the Council tonight is approval of the land use entitlements for the
project.
So if Council wanted to have a deeper discussion or a broader discussion on conveyance of property or things like that, that would be something we should agendize at a separate meeting and have a more full discussion. But to answer the question, you know, I think our analysis would be that it does present challenges from a title standpoint whenever you have ownership of a structure and not ownership of the land. So, you know, we could bring something back to Council on the land side of it. We were going to have to do that anyway.
Thank you very much.
1:57 – 2:0419 turns
As we keep moving on with the project, correct?
Yes and no. So, I mean, I think there are some aspects of the project that could be moved forward once the entitlements are approved. Construction of any units will still be, we still don't have an agreement with Habitat that would allow them to enter onto the city property and begin constructing things. So, you know, that was already something that, you know, was kind of on the to-do list of things to bring back to Council.
So, does that answer your question? Yeah,
that does. And, you know, I am in favor of moving this forward. I think that where a committee could come in helpful or could be useful in the process is when we do get to the stop, when we get to some of the details like The stop signs and looking at things with Public Works. I think that would be, I would love to have the people who live on Franklin or anyone else who would be affected by that area participate in making some decisions there.
Because you're the ones who are going to have that. I'm also in favor of the five units. Because, first of all, I don't want to kill the project. This is important. We've worked really hard on this. As Francine said, this is going to help so many people who are struggling. Even if it's just five families, that makes a dent. And I do feel comfortable with the responses that Darcy had regarding the selection process.
That priority would be given to Ojai residents. And if they own the land, or if the city is working it out to where they have the land, then we don't have the responsibility of those common areas, which I think could be an ongoing issue. So that's just some of my thoughts.
And, um, I'm, how many generations, like, so, somebody buys a home, then, you know, they're gonna move on, they have to sell it to low income, they have the same qualifications, the same criteria. Does that go on time after time after time, or does it, you know, it's only two people? In other words, I'm trying to, uh, sort of, um, I work with Councilman Whitman's idea that, you know, we own the land and so we can control it. But as long as it's controlled and it's kept as, you know, affordable housing in perpetuity, whether that's, you know, deed restricted or whatever, I mean, I'm trying to figure out if we kept the land, what does that give us? As far as rights of control, considering that the only rights of control that we really want is that this does not, at least for me, that this does not enter into a market rate situation over a certain number of years.
And does that, does that actually, is that possible to happen after a certain number of years? So if it can't happen, then I'm perfectly, then I don't see the advantage of keeping the land. Is that
the
case, sir?
I think the city attorney said that issue about land ownership would come back to us at, because here we're deciding the entitlement, which I wasn't clear on when I made my comments about ownership, so I don't think we need to decide. We can get the report on the pros and cons
of retaining ownership. Yeah, we can bring back the menu of options. Yeah,
that's great. That's
perfect.
Because I think I'm mimicking what you will be saying, which is the bottom line for me is we're looking for, for myself, affordable housing available to our residents or people interested in here the best way we possibly can. That's
it, the bottom line. Yep. Through the Mayor, I just do have one question and it's for Darcy. Darcy, can I ask you to come to the microphone just for a second? Sorry. Just with all this discussion going on, the only question I have, and maybe you answered this earlier, but how does this discussion impact your potential funding with the county?
Yeah, so we're on a tight deadline, obviously, with COVID and all the other things associated with the county budget. And in Sacramento, they've done away with home money. And so, you know, the longer this drags out, our timeline is May 15th, we've got to have an answer because we'll lose this funding. When I say May, we got to have a shovel in the ground on that date.
So it's not, again,
Yes, so we need to put some parameters around decision-making, no more just, okay, we'll come back and decide it. We need one meeting, we need a decision, and we need to move forward. I understand that there is an urgency, so we need to get the information from Our city attorney, and then we need to convene and if Mr. Trent would like to be part of it or some part of his neighbors, you know, it doesn't have to be a large committee. It can be, you know, it could be a small committee that's just going to hash this out and each person is a decision maker for their particular group that they're representing or they go back and, you
know. Sorry to step on you, Council Member Rule. One more clarifying question. Do you mean permit obtaining?
Yeah, so even a month delay at this point in time jeopardizes our ability to bring this project.
Pulling permits, obtaining permits, what's the requirement?
Well, we have, to date we've already invested a significant amount of pre-construction cost in this project. As Katie has mentioned, we've got to, you know, there's some things I think that we can do prior to having like grading and those kind of things. Some of this can happen, but in all fairness, we're on a tight timeline here. We need permits and entitlement, the drawings approved, to secure this half a million dollar funding. I mean the project overall is only 1.7.
I have a number of opinions, but I'm not a council member.
If we were to take something like two weeks or possibly slightly more to have a conversation and a decision about granting the land, hypothetically, does that put a big barrier into you starting this project, or is that just a benefit to you? I assume the second.
2:04 – 2:2236 turns
This is Katie. She's my point person on our communication with the Council.
To answer Mr. Harvey's earlier question, May 15th, that deadline is for a building permit. So just to clarify there, two weeks, I think that's an allowance that we can make as long as we can show that we are making steady progress on the project. I've been updating the county after every meeting. I think we can do that as far as the land conveyance is concerned.
That seems kind of fast to me. What if it was longer than two weeks?
Well, what's today's date, March 24th? How much time do you need, I guess? I want to default to my
attorney
here. So I think it's realistic to think, Council, you know, you've got a very busy meeting this next meeting on the 14th. You have a special meeting already scheduled for the 7th for the tree ordinance. You could schedule another meeting on the 21st if you wanted to.
Because
I wouldn't have an issue with going, you know, other than a council night.
Yeah, I mean, we could do a one-off, you know. I mean, I don't want to keep pushing it out, putting Habitat at risk and making their timeline get tighter and tighter and tighter for them.
We also have another special meeting on the 16th.
Let
me just walk through the meetings you have. So you've got one on the 7th, the 14th, and the 16th, and the 28th. Those are your next four meetings.
Which of those days? The 16th.
April 16th. If that's available, we'll take it. That's
an off schedule. We can put the menu of options available by
then. For us to decide that night.
Thank
you. Thank you very much.
Thanks
for working with us. We know that you've come here many times. This seems like an interesting time, though, to actually enhance the project slightly with a slight delay.
And if the county starts getting tricky, get back in touch with us. Mayor, we're going
to need a motion detailed, and then you're going to need to also include in that, if you don't mind, sir, something about continuing to the 16th.
I'll try to wing it and then tell me if I get anything wrong. I would move that we move this discussion to April 16th and that would be a conversation related to land use, lease or gift to Habitat. That would also include priority around first right of, I don't know how to say this, Who gets a chance to move in first? Residency. Priority for application. Anything else?
The CC&Rs, are we going to make sure those
were brought forward? We will address that. What we will do is, so I don't know that the CC&Rs would be prepared that are specific to this site, but we would, we can provide you with kind of the analysis of what would, what you would want to see potentially in the CC&Rs.
And then the agreement between Habitat and the eventual homeowner.
And then also, if we can have
it, that should be provided ahead of time.
If we could have a decision or at least research by public works around the stop sign. I think several of us have said we really want
that. Yeah, so if you don't mind, what I recorded was a land use discussion relating to lease or gift. Sorry, the meetings continue to the 16th, and in that meeting, the following five items will be covered. Ms. Morai, are you tracking this? Okay, sorry. Land use, lease, or gift, number one. Number two, what I'm calling residency priority. Number three, draft CC&Rs.
Number four, draft homeowner agreement. And number five, stop sign Thank you very much.
The request for CC&R, homeowner agreements, maintenance agreement, agreement between Habitat and homeowners, all of those are only in theory. I mean, because I can send you one with Camarillo, one with Oxnard. Yes, that's all we're asking for. Yeah, because none of that is relevant until the project is relevant.
The land needs to be settled. Thank you for the clarification. I need a second on that.
I'll
second.
Okay, any more discussion? Roll call please.
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0
Show transcript
Thank you. 10 minute break. We'll come right back. Check
2:22 – 2:298 turns
one, two, one, two. We are back in session. Please sit down.
Thank you. First item for the council that I want to ask is there has been a request by many in the audience that if it's possible to move 8 and 9 after basically 10, 11, 12, and possibly 13, but at least 10, 11, and 12. Because we have audience there waiting for these two things. How would everybody feel about that? I'll take eight and nine and postpone them to beyond 13.
Yeah, I want to make sure we get to those.
Yeah, I want to be, me too, me too. I'm just thinking of the, I'm thinking of the people in the crowd, but I want to be respectful as well.
No, I'm fine with
that. Okay. I'm fine with that. Thank you for being flexible. Any objections to that? No. Thank you, everybody. So we'll move on to number 10, a feasibility review for proposed Ojai Permanent Supportive Housing Project at 503 South Ventura Street.
Okay, great. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to ask Mr. Seibert, if you wouldn't mind, to please join me once again. Sorry, you didn't get too situated back there. Okay, good. Thank you. Wait for him to come up. And while he's coming up here, I'm asking Mr. Seibert to join me along with Ms. Burgess, because it was a group effort to draft this feasibility review, and I'm going to ask them to speak to certain components of this.
Let's just dive right in. So, based upon council direction at the last meeting, we were asked to come back with the feasibility review, and actually this PowerPoint doesn't go with this presentation, so if we could... I'll just turn that one off. Thank you. We were asked at the last council meeting to bring back a feasibility review for using the property recently purchased at 503 South Ventura Street that abuts the Greater City Hall campus for a potential permanent supportive housing project.
And so in doing that, before we dive into it, I just want to identify that we identified five primary concerns to look at. One related to land use, one related to the development management agreement with Dignity Moves, one related to the encampment resolution fund grant from the state of California. One related just to the topic of locations for this project in general, and one related to project timeline. So those were the five areas. They are spelled out here in this document that you have in front of you, but we're going to walk through them briefly before we kick it over to council discussion.
So, with that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Seibert to talk briefly about this parcel. Of course, you did hear about it at the very last meeting, but maybe just a real quick refresher, a discussion of what is zoned currently and what would need to be undertaken in order to allow for this project. Mr. Seibert.
Thank you. I'm not going to say my name again. I think everybody knows me in the audience at this point. The land use piece that we're speaking about here, I'll talk about the existing as well as the residential standards that apply. The existing conditions for this site are about 8,700 square feet in area or 0.2 acres in size. The existing on-site uses include a single-family residence of about 1,300 square feet, as well as a barn, which is really towards the front of the property, at about 850 square feet. Access is provided as a flat piece of property that does have a little bit of a slope towards the back of the property.
Technical studies that would be from an existing condition standpoint be a part of this as a feasibility piece would include a noise study. There was already a Phase 1 that was done on this property, so we would be asking for a Phase 2, a survey of the property, As is customary, a traffic study or traffic analysis, tree reports for this site as well, and then biological resources assessment, and then soils reports, which would be kind of married with the Phase 2 piece as well. But the soils would really be looking at the construction more than it would be looking at what's on the site or even subterranean to the site.
The residential standards for this site, it is identified from a zoning standpoint as R1, which is low density from a land use standpoint. So, what that means is it's primarily single family. It is kind of the single family zoning that is customary throughout the city. And from that standpoint, there Through our code as it exists right now, there is the potential for up to four units. The zoning identifies three to four units to the acre. That is really three to four single-family homes per acre. Now on this site, as I'd mentioned as a part of the existing conditions, that it is 0.2 acres. What that means is really you're looking at one single-family home the possibility of one junior ADU, okay, so it's a unit that is really kind of in the 500 square feet or below, attached, typically sharing facilities, internal, typically sanitation.
And then you're looking at an ADU on the site, more than likely, and then through our provisions today, a tiny home as well. So that's how you get to the four. That's through our single-family zoning regulations. The surrounding uses themselves have, from a zoning standpoint, to the west, north, and east, southeast, it is PL, or public, quasi-public, and then residential to the south, directly to the south, and then directly to the east.
With that, I have in here the feasibility studies site strengths, challenges as well that have been identified here. I'm not going to go through those, but certainly we can talk about them if you'd like. The youth classification, there are provisions which is consistent with what we had looked at for the lower public works yard site. And then parking and traffic is consistent with what we had seen for the lower public work yard, public works yard, so.
2:29 – 2:3813 turns
Okay, yeah, questions? All right, do we want to jump right into the DMA component of the feasibility study? Do you want to touch on that briefly? I know that you're going to cover that in great detail later, but do you want to give a high level?
Do you want to do HCD first?
Well, the order in the document is I've got the DMA, I think, first, don't I? Oh, I'm losing, sorry, dyslexics. I just was wanting to hand it over to you right away. All right, let's talk about the Encampment Resolution Fund Grant. So, the city received $12.7 million in 2024. That was for a different location. It was a location here at Kent Hall. We subsequently modified that following council direction for the current site. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Approval of a location for the project does have to go through HCD, who administers the Encampment Resolution Fund Grant for the City. And in their review of project locations, if an agency is looking to change a location, they'd like it to do one of two things, or both. One, provide more services. Two, provide better access to services. Or three, both. Arguably, 503 South Ventura is in close proximity to the Lower Public Works Yard, so it's arguably similar as far as proximity to services, and so the rationale is that the development that would be done there would have to be 31 units, which would increase over 30. So we ran that premise by HCD again yesterday. They affirmed that that would probably be what they would like to see.
What they wouldn't be as favorable in reviewing would be something that was less, 29 and lower. So that's this kind of the overarching guidance that we'd want the council to consider. Beyond that, the ERF grant funds, a portion of them have already been expended towards the location at the lower public works yard. Including some that Dignity Moves has drawn down from their $5.9 million advance, and that's about $760,000 worth of design and development costs.
On top of that, the City has also incurred expenses towards the project or obligated them around $900,000 total in counting all the contracts and so forth that have been expended. Saying that that entire amount would have to be refunded, I think that's, you know, a discussion that, you know, if we move to a new location, we would have to have with HCD to determine how much, if any, or all, would need to be refunded, what the requirement is. We had very preliminary discussions because, of course, we didn't have council direction to move to a new site. But I think that is the overarching headline that I want the Council and the community to have, is that HCD approval is required for a new location and you may be obligated to repay a portion of grant funds if they've been expended towards a site that you are no longer considering.
Okay, so now I'm going to turn it over to... Can I just
piggyback on to what you were saying, and I was wanting you to identify the unit count piece before I go into this next piece, which is, I identified the density piece as it exists. If we're going into and we're looking at the feasibility of 31 units, the zoning doesn't support that as it currently sits. So you'd be looking at a zone change general plan amendment. There's a couple different options that you could consider. One would be an R3, which fits it into a multifamily, that's 15 units to the acre. The other would be the SPL overlay. So you do that, that gets you 20 plus units to the acre and fits quite nicely into these types of scenarios.
So just quickly, you're saying that in order to do that, we would have to designate this an SPL overlay and or change the zoning. If we did both of those, then we would hit, we would be able to hit that number. Either one of those. Either or, okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you.
I'm not clear. Are you saying that if you made those changes, you could squeeze in 31 units into a quarter acre.
I am saying that yes it would support it because it is it is fitting the the mold as it relates to the permanent supportive housing provisions which talk about multifamily and or mixed-use. So here the multifamily as an R3 would fit So here's the interesting thing about how you can accommodate that. So it talks about finding other similar types of projects, which is what we did for the lower public works yard. There wasn't a litmus test to say, oh, shoot, we've done this.
Here, instead, we did a full analysis for findings of similar use. In doing that, what we found was there is similar uses that had either a mixed use or multifamily that fit within that same category. Here, there would have to be a full analysis done to confirm either the R3 or the SPL overlay. So, I'm saying both of those are on the table. One may end up falling out after you do the full analysis, but it's likely that, at the very least, the SPL would fit within that category.
And obviously, it would need to be two stories minimum, maybe more. Yeah, when I talk density, you're looking at at least
two stories.
Yeah, I mean, you're looking at two stories, but it's absolutely doable in that. I'm not saying that that is the place. I'm saying that in 0.2 acres, it's absolutely doable to do 31. Just saying. Those are just the facts. Is there more
analysis that would have to be done? Any questions? Yeah,
anything else? So yeah, we've we've got much more to pick up So I'm gonna now ask the city attorney to now take on do a high level of the DMA knowing that you're coming back to this more
We do have a separate item where we're gonna talk specifically and more in a in preparation for your next council meeting or next regular council meeting but I think the the crux for the purposes of the feasibility analysis is that The development management agreement was established with, it was specific to the current project, so it was a 30-unit project at 611 South Montgomery Street.
To relocate the project, we would have to engage in discussions with Dignity Moves about Amendment of the contract and you know I think the one kind of other piece and this ties in a bit to the the concerns or not concerns but the issue related to potential grant fund expenditures that have already been made. So, you know, when it comes to the design costs and other consulting costs, you know, obviously those are site-specific costs. And so if you were to relocate the project, I think the one thing I would want to make sure that Council understands is if we engage in a discussion with Dignity Moves about amending the agreement for a different site, You know, they will probably still request things like reimbursement of engineering, architecture, design costs that are currently reimbursable under the funding that's provided under the Development Management Agreement today.
I think, you know, if the city is covering those costs, I would like to believe that whether, you know, through the grant or some other mechanism, Thank you.
2:38 – 2:455 turns
Yeah, it's high level. Just a quick question. Haven't we paid those? Hasn't that money come out of our grant money? I mean, why would it be reimbursable to
Dignity
Moves?
So, I mean, so I think Dignity Moves may be, the way that the grant is written, it describes those costs as being reimbursable. So I think what happens is that Dignity Moves Thank you very much. Thank you. They would presumably seek recovery of the costs associated with the new design.
Okay, moving on to one of the big components that we looked at in reviewing this, and that is of the location. And in the two years that we've been working on this project, this has been really the biggest sticking point. And I think this is important just to walk through some of the other sites we've looked at, because this is now the 10th that we officially have somewhat looked at. There have been probably upwards of 15, if you count those that we That I informally checked out based upon a lead or a tip or so forth. I just want to walk through the locations so everybody can just have them kind of sink in. Kent Hall, that was the original site location. Soule Park, the former County Honor Farm location.
601 East Ojai Avenue, that's the lot across from Seafresh. East Ojai Avenue, the vacant lot that abuts the fire station there. 1400 Maricopa Highway that's across the street from Nordoff High School on the corner. Rotary Park at 1023 West Ojai Avenue. The county-owned public works yard in Miner's Oak and the county-owned parcel that's across the street from Camp Comfort.
Those were all locations that we looked at with some seriousness, you know, with dignity moves, with the county and with others. It should be pointed out that a number of those are county-owned sites, and the county did advise that every single one of those was unavailable for project use. So this would be the tenth site that we've looked at, and my experience has been, as soon as you potentially identify a potential location, that is when the public interest and opposition begins, usually. It takes a little bit of while, but there's no site that I've identified Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In all of our analysis going through all those sites that I mentioned, it is our determination and the Council's direction to go with the lower public workshare because it was the best, considering everything of all those sites we looked at. You know, the other thing that comes up, and I think this is important too, HCD is primarily interested in sites within Ojai. When we have talked about sites outside of Ojai, There's been some tepid, you know, acceptance, if at all. But the comment that we usually get back is, well, this award is for the City of Ojai, it's not for the County of Ventura. Are you suggesting that you want to give your money to the County of Ventura, to them, so that they can build a project? We're looking for something within Ojai.
So that's something to consider. So, you know, and Ojai's not unlimited in where you can place something. And that consumes a lot of time, which kind of gets me to the next point. Project timeline is important when you think about this, because there are a lot of pieces involved in moving to a new location. And so I want to walk through with Council and the community here. If we were to move to this new location, just what we preliminarily identified is what you would have to do to get this going again. So you'd need a zone change.
General plan amendment. You need an amendment to the ERF grant and approval from HCD. You'd need some type of revised or new DMA with Dignity Moves or some other non-profit developer. You would need some type of plan to potentially repay expended ERF grant funds and the ability to do so. You'd need community acceptance of a new location, and this one is really hard to arrive at, as everybody here knows. And then potentially, because you're going to have to restart the design and the entitlement process, you know, just beginning all over again and looking at that particular site and what it needs.
So, the timeline, you know, it's taken us two years to get here to date. I don't know the new location. It would take two more years. You know, maybe we've learned some lessons along the way and maybe there's some greater acceptance. Maybe there's less acceptance. I don't know. But it's something that you need to consider because there are some constraints with your time. You've got a constraint as far as when you can expend all the money according to, you know, state law for the ERF grant.
I believe the drop dead date to obligate the remaining funds that you have is the end of April of this year, I believe. And when I say obligate, that means that they have to be contracted or committed. It doesn't mean they have to be spent, but they have to be committed. And then, of course, you know, the elephant in the room, we're trying to solve an issue. We're trying to provide housing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our Homeless Services Coordinator and our full-time volunteer and all the community that comes forth to help us each week. But, you know, that's a lot of goodwill that we're really burning while we try to make sure that we determine the permit solution. And we are looking to determine a permit solution, and this relates to the timeline too, because that's how we get eligibility for funding in the long term.
The longer we remain an unsanctioned, excuse me, a sanctioned homeless encampment, the longer we continue to be uneligible for county funds, which we would be eligible for if we were able to build a permit-supporting housing project, and that's why we're trying to move towards that. So that's all related. So with that all in mind, Anything is possible if the will is there and the interest is there and the direction is provided. We can do anything that you want us to do, but I just want you to be mindful of all those challenges that we identified that would be associated with this property, and I can't look any of you in the face and say I recommend doing this, knowing that. And so that's my high-level summary, and we'll take any questions.
Thank you.
2:45 – 2:549 turns
Thank everybody for turning this around in two weeks. I know that you worked hard, you took it seriously, you took your charge seriously, and I totally appreciate it. So, yeah, I guess I have no questions for you. I think I have a lot of discussion, but I think we need public comment before discussion. But thank you very much, everyone, who worked hard in the two weeks and turned it around. I much appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Seibert. Thank you, Ms. Burgess. Okay, I'll go to public comments. First, Rachel Hunt, please, Leanna McNeely, and Bradley Smith, please.
Hi, I'm Rachel, and I'm the Homeless Services Coordinator for the City. I think Ben pretty much summed it up well, especially regarding the time constraints. The main one I could think of is the people's lifespan. It would be horrible to keep this Waiting until the point where they get in there and then they, you know, have three months more of their lives.
So, first off though, what I had written is that I'm so thankful for all the compassion and the support I've witnessed over the last couple years to OTT and everybody who contributes, the volunteers, and And in general, being an Ohioan, the compassion that I witnessed, and being a lower socioeconomic status individual here, I'm so thankful that I was planted here, because anywhere else I think I would have ended up dead.
But thankfully, I was in this small town where people knew each other and had huge hearts. And this has been kind of a healing journey for me, just seeing the support from the community. It's an absolute nightmare, I think, right now that this is in question of relocating the cabin village. I've seen a lot of anxiety from the people within the encampment over the last week when they heard that the project might be killed.
I think any conversation at this point in feasibility studies Regarding changing the location of the cabin village directly negatively affects the quality of life for these individuals in these last years who on the majority are disabled and elderly. So that's pretty much it. Let's do whatever we can to move this forward and keep it going so these people can have a roof over their head sooner than later.
Thank you. Leanna McNeely, please, then Bradley Smith, and then Dwayne LaBarre. Thank you.
So, a lot of what Rachel said, but I've got more to say. City Council, Mayor and City Administration, thank you for all your hard work and for the opportunity to speak tonight. I respectfully request City Council cease suggesting alternate sites for the Permanent Supportive Housing Project at the Lower Public Works Yard. That site was approved by the City Council and the California Department of Housing and Development in August of 2024. There's no doubt you will hear at tonight's meeting that the public works yard is a failed site.
You will also undoubtedly hear the term, sunken costs fallacies. There will be reasons given why this site has failed for this project and why it is folly. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. The point where it needs only approval for the removal of the contaminated soil and ratification of the approved contractor, both City Council responsibilities.
Looking back at the timeline, there have been countless public meetings and presentations, Planning Commission hearings, multiple requests by some of the very members of the public and City Council that have created the delays resulting in the timeline we have. All the aforementioned meetings were for a reason, to make the project as bulletproof as possible. The City has been cautious in the handling of this project in order to prevent any legal challenges. Moving the location will open up a variety of avenues for legal mechanisms to stall and eventually make it impossible to build this housing for the most vulnerable in our city.
We know our neighbors have the financial resources to launch a campaign for a special election. A successful vote to move the project creates a strong potential for legal challenges New objections and hurdles, longer timelines, and higher costs. While I do not believe Council Member Rule wants to derail the project, her efforts to move it will invariably result in doing so.
Please reconsider how your demands will affect the people who need these homes. Thank you.
Thank you. Bradley Smith, please. Duane Labar, and then Marcy Tosher.
Mayor, Council, Administration, what she said. The ball's been kicked down the road. The can's been kicked down the road for a long time. It's time to stop messing around with it and get it done. Act together as a team. That's what we elected you to do. I think the citizens would like to see you do it. I certainly know the residents. That's all. Thanks.
Thank you, sir. Dwayne Labar, Marcy Tosher, and then it looks like Jamie Nelson.
Thank you. I'm Doug Labar. You probably saw my wife Delaney. Oh, I did see that. Thank you, sir. Yeah, she got exasperated and had to leave. Okay, thanks. Got it. It's amazing that tonight there are two similar sized projects on the agenda to be talked about, being considered with extremely different proposals. 503 South Ventura Street, is 8,712 square feet.
To put 31 units on that, without any parking, without any landscaping, without any setbacks, is 281 square feet per unit. These people who need to move into this from the tent town do not need to be going up and down two or three flights of stairs. And I don't think that it needs to have elevators and fire escapes and all that other crap that would be put on a lot that size.
Montgomery Street, the Cabin Village proposal site, is 75,000, almost 800 square feet. We've got to stop kicking the can down the street. The proposal would be amusing, the one on Ventura Street, if it wasn't so absurd. The opposition struggles to divert the Cabin Village to another property than the Public Works Yard, and they would most likely benefit by getting to know some of the existing members of Tent Town.
Thank you.
2:54 – 3:015 turns
I've got another elephant in the room, and that's that I'd love to know what is motivating certain Council members to put roadblocks along the way to the culmination of this project that's been going on for at least two years now. It's been estimated that if we were to start over from square one again, in addition to the financial consequences, of which I really don't think we know the extent to which they might be, but the timeline would extend probably at least from planning to shovel in the ground to completion, five years.
We're talking about the lifespan of maybe some of the elderly in Tent Town. Are you hoping that some of them are no longer, while this can is kicked down the road? I don't know. I don't know what the motivation is. But I'd love the City Attorney to maybe look at an Orange County case where the, I think the case is called, I can get it to you, something like Orange County Catholics, something or other. Anyway, the homeless were successful in a lawsuit against the County of Orange County for promising, kicking them out of where they were, like a river or whatever, kicking them out, saying, we have a permanent housing solution for you all.
Well, they kicked them out. Their permanent housing solution was to put them in a hotel for 30 days. It never materialized, the permanent housing, and they were represented by some very prestigious national law firms, which won enormous, enormous judgment against the county. Maybe it was the City of Orange, it was in Orange County, whatever. Anyway, I, you know, that's a potential cost that you might not be aware of, but I think you should be aware of that possibility for a lawsuit, which I know you don't have a, I don't think the people in Ojai and you guys don't have an appetite to start generating more legal fees and all of that and exposing yourselves that way, but you've got a project that's shovel-ready.
Just need the soils report. We just need the soil mitigation. You to approve that and a few other things that can be worked out. Let's go. I'm quoting Leslie Rule. You just now said with regard to the, yeah, Habitat for Humanity. Enough talking. Let's go. Well, I'd like that to apply in this situation. Enough talking. Let's go. Thank you.
Thank you. Jamie Nelson, David Chapman, and then Ruth Miller, please. Absolutely, great.
I'm a little, people die and tend to repeat the same thing over again. And mainly, I'm Jamie Nelson, and good evening. And mainly, I just want everyone to know how much I appreciate Tent Town very, very much. But I am a little worried because we have lost I've been here and so I'm a little worried. And so I would really appreciate it if everything was done to hurry this along as much as you can.
But I love Ojai very much and I love all of you. David Chapman please, and then Ruth Miller, and then Francine.
Hello Council, Mayor, Council and Administration. Thank you for your service to the people of Ojai and to the attention to the unhoused and vulnerable population in our town. I am strongly recommending Council not to support efforts to move the permanent supportive housing site from the maintenance yard to the property at 503 South Ventura Street. There really is no certain outcome with this drastic late-stage change in strategy.
The feasibility review clearly shows the impact to the project by this proposal. Restructuring the project will cause, at a minimum, 1.5 to 2 years of further delay, thus causing further harm and suffering for the vulnerable residents of Ted Town. The site is already showing the effects of wear and tear. Tents are degrading due to weather. Rat infestations are occurring, with rat damage causing tears in holes in tents. Preparing food with the current setup, as you all know, is far from ideal.
U.S. Council members were elected to support the greater people of Ojai. Have some compassion for those who are unhoused, and do not pander to special interest NIMBY individuals who want to derail the project for their own selfish reasons. Their objections are nothing but a shell game to kill the project. In conclusion, I would like to directly address those who say the public work yard site is failing. Issues raised such as the access road is not wide enough, there's a lack of storage, etc.
These and other issues are not your responsibility. The permitting currently in process by the experts will address any issues that come up in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. Please, Council members, consider the motivations of the people who are behind this site change. You are being used to advance an agenda that is not yours. Thank you.
Thank you. Ruth Miller, please, Francine, and then Casey Abbott.
3:01 – 3:0812 turns
Hi, I'm Ruth Miller.
Hello.
With the In-House Task Force and On-Site OTT Volunteer. Nearly three years ago, there was an article in the Ojai Valley News about how the family shelter was closing for the season, and there was an 80-year-old woman who was going to be put on the street. This prompted the Unhoused Task Force to form. Among those supporters were four of the Ojai City Council, Suza Francina, Betsy Sticks, Rachel Lang, and Leslie Rule.
We were and still are very grateful for that support. Woman in the article ended up camping in a tent at City Hall. She eventually was able to occupy one of the white wilderness tents briefly, before she went into a care facility and shortly after died from cancer. So, she was suffering with cancer while living in a tent. This is how we treat our most vulnerable elderly in our society.
Right now, there are people at OTT who have a variety of illnesses, some of them likely fatal. Heart disease, aortic aneurysm, spinal injury, diabetes with problems associated with advanced diabetes, seizure disorder, brain injuries, and cancer. Causing delays and changing locations are a known NIMBY maneuver, which are done purposefully to cause a project to fail.
I don't believe that that City Council wishes that. I do believe it's a likely outcome. Please look hard at the consequences of changing location, both monetarily to the city and in human suffering. There was a Facebook post recently regarding the proposed supportive housing project where, of course, there were lots of arguments. This one post struck me. Don't worry, most of the unhoused are elderly.
I've been homeless for eight years. Most of the people who are waiting have many serious disabilities. I know three people who have died. The odds are against us. You have a chance to save that outcome for her, for our OTT friends, and for countless vulnerable people now and in the future.
Thank you, Ms. Miller. Francine Casey-Abbott, and then Clay Creasy, please.
So, as some of you have gotten to know me a little bit.
Right.
In the housing world, I'm known as the GOAT, because I can house people in one day. I do that because of Mr. Conley. He's the one I lost. Heart attack. Two days before he got keys. I said, never again am I going to lose someone, a housing, because someone stood in my way. You can you can call and find out. Ask Andrew Salinas about me. He'll tell you. They got stories.
I'm not nice. Really, I'm not. Ask Alex Nguyen. Ask Billy Hube. Ask your county supervisor. See whose villain I am. I don't stand here. Simply because I didn't have anything to do tonight. I get up at 430 in the morning, drive to West L.A., drive through five counties to house people. And then I had a whole back. To make this meeting, because here's the thing. How many of you looked at people there that are dying?
And let them die. I want to know how many of you walk through the shelters seeing these people suffering, coughing in agony and pain. But it's an inconvenience because I don't feel this is right. I don't feel this is good. I'm here to share what I can bring and help you with this versus how ugly I can make this. Because at the end of the day, these are people. These are your neighbors, people in your community. And I'm sorry that it makes you unpopular with your check writers, with some of your constituents. You didn't sign up for this because you just wanted it to be easy. If you wanted to look cute, you should have been on a commission, not a council.
These are the lives of people. And one day, you're going to be the one who's going to be on the other side of that 911 call. And having to answer for letting that happen and not moving forward. And having to answer to people when they say, why did my family member die like that? When you look at that death certificate and it says homeless. When that was preventable.
We're the richest country in the world. How do we not have to do? This is Ojai Valley for God's sake. How do you not have? You can shut roads down so Taylor Swift can enjoy your press sheets at the Ojai Valley Inn and mooses and whatever else. But we can't forward a project to let those who are so unfortunate right now to have some dignity in life. That's just an embarrassment.
And to sit there with your heads high, you've got a lot to answer for. Thank
you, Francine. Casey Abbott, please, Clay Creasy, and then Jane Walter.
Hello, everybody.
Hello.
So we're hearing about you guys all have this choice sitting at you. Thinking about what Mr. Harvey said, a pretty good summary of the benefits and what's the word for the opposite of benefits, the adversities of choosing this new microsite. There won't be mini homes there, there will be micro homes. It sounds like with the square footage, you have to be stacked eight tall to make it fit.
Anyways, they get that, and you've got an election coming. I think it's time we flush the toilet on this new piece of property and just say, it ain't going to work. If you do want to go through with it, we're going to go find out who those attorneys were for Orange County and get in with them, because that's going to be a lot of money in my pocket. So up to you. Either way, it's going to work for me somehow.
We work a whole lot better if you vote for it, because I'm going to be on the lawsuit against you. All right?
Have a good evening.
3:08 – 3:169 turns
City Council, obviously this is a highly charged topic and I was not originally going to speak, but I've heard so many comments, I want to make a few things clear. Number one, I know there's a concern among some that a shift in a location would produce a window for people to challenge that via a referendum or another mechanism similar. I personally would never support that. I haven't talked to anybody who would support that.
It is, I guess, a theoretical fear, but I'm saying publicly that I would never endorse or participate in that. I will say that the significant delay, which is extremely regrettable, is unfortunately largely on the City staff. Last August, you gave the City staff the go-ahead to do the lead remediation project. That bid is only being heard tonight, eight months later. What on earth took eight months to go out to bid for something that only takes a two-week window?
How about that? We also have And when you read the fine print of the lead remediation project, DTSC is reserving for themselves up to 100 days to decide whether the project was successful or not. You can't stick a shovel in the ground until after you get that all clear letter from DTSC. You could easily be into September, even if everything works well. That's a year and a month after you got the approval to do that.
With regard to Dignity Moves process, it is, you know, water over the dam, as they say. But they themselves are the ones who screwed up the bid process when they failed to obey the state law, which they said, per the DMA, that they were going to obey. And then we had to bring in the outside watchdog to convince the city administration that, in fact, the law was the law and they had to obey it.
Notwithstanding that delay, they told you they would be bringing a general contractor bid to you for approval on February 3rd. I guess we forgot to ask which February. They aren't there yet. It's way over budget per the numbers that are submitted. You have theoretical representations by your City Manager that Dignity Moves is going to cover budget overages, even though the DMA doesn't say that. I feel greatly for the unhoused. I actually think whatever we can do to make it happen fast, we ought to do, understanding that there are budget limitations that don't allow us to do anything we want.
But you need to understand the reality. Most of this problem Unfortunately, back on the city staff.
Thank you, Mr. Casey. Jane Walter, please.
Hi everyone, I'm Jane Walter, Executive Director of HELP of Ojai. I do feel a little bit like deja vu right now, and I was thinking about this, that I made this exact same plea or statement, must have been over almost a year and a half ago at this point, because my friend Betsy Van Light was here with me when it happened, where we were saying, please just do something, like please make a decision, move forward with this project.
So here I am again saying the same thing, but also really important data came out yesterday. Maybe you saw it. The continuum of care released it. It's our homeless point in time count from the end of January of this year. The good news is the county as a whole has seen an almost 12% decrease in the number of unsheltered and sheltered homeless individuals. Ojai, however, has seen a 20% increase.
We aren't doing any of the interventions that partners in this county are doing, including offering transitional housing, shelter, and importantly, permanent supportive housing. And we will continue to see these numbers grow until we actually have interventions. So the encampment you have right now could very likely be another encampment years from now, as we delay these programs and fail to actually intervene in the ways that we can.
So I ask you, please consider just not only, yes, of course, the residents who are out there, but as service providers, we can only do so much. And we can only do so much if there's not housing in order to send people to. And so really, please consider that and review the data if you haven't already. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Walter. That's all the cards I have. Anybody online?
Yes, I have Dave P., Sue Williamson, and Larry Steingold.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Dave. Unmute yourself.
Hello, can you hear me okay? Yes, yes. Okay, thank you. I would love to be there in person, but I am actually in northern Michigan right now in about 20 degree weather as I'm attending a family funeral, so please bear with me. My family and I have resided in Ojai for 15 years. To be honest, I've retracted from recent City Council meetings because I have felt that my input regarding permanent supportive housing has been ignored.
I have seen and heard the prep work being done to the Lower Maintenance Yard. I have learned the project at its current location is already trending significantly over budget. I live next door to 503 South Ventura Street. It surprises me to learn this property is being considered as it is, as there wasn't even ever a for sale sign offered in front of it. I question whether this relatively small parcel could really move the needle with regards to housing our homeless population.
My family is firmly adhering to our zoning guidelines, as we are a six-person household with five at-risk individuals. As I hear others speak to at-risk individuals, I would point out that of my six individuals in my household, I have three children and one elderly, my father, who suffers from Alzheimer's dementia. So let's not pretend that the housed individuals in our neighborhoods are not at risk.
In general, I am not against permanent supportive housing, but I'm concerned with the halo effect a project like this brings. I recognize many of our OTT residents and see them around town. It is also obvious to me when someone new appears or arrives who is not a resident of our OTT. What will be done To ensure that the residents of the property next to mine are actually vetted to live there and that no other individuals are authorized to reside there or hang out adjacent to the property.
How much will this property actually positively impact our homeless population compared to its cost? We've already seen the residents of 514 South Ventura Street vacate the community due to the Council's decision to move forward With lower maintenance yard, why does this council continue to entertain options that negatively impact and alienate existing homeowners? Thank you.
Thank you.
3:16 – 3:2514 turns
Go ahead, Sue. Unmute yourself.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes.
Yeah, hi, my name is Sue Williamson. I just want to thank all the people that have spoken so far. It's been very moving. Clearly, I agree with everything everyone has said, and I thank you for the research you've done, the time you've put in to try to make this project move forward, and I am shocked, dismayed, disgusted with the fact that now you are proposing another site. This is so, so ridiculous. It's just insane.
And all the work that has gone on, the money's been spent. How could you even consider it? It's just ridiculous. I am so disappointed in this council. I mean, that you would allow this to go on. You know, it's sort of the same way I feel about the fact that people are allowing Donald Trump to, you know, take over our country with secret police. It's just infuriating. What is wrong with people?
I mean, come on. All these people have put all this time, four people have died in the last four years or three or two years that you have been procrastinating about this project. It's ridiculous. It's inhuman. Wake up, please. Move on with this project and get it done. There is no excuse for this type of behavior on your part. It's just infuriating. It's just infuriating, and I just really hope you will come to your senses and get over yourselves and start thinking about the people that need your help.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Larry.
Oh, there. Okay, thank you. What a mess. right, and the fact is we're going to be spending, I don't know how many, a million a year for maintaining this thing. That's a bigger concern about where it is. This is going to be a permanent facility. I mean, this is the same square footage that's the property on Franklin and Montgomery. Okay, 8,000 square feet. Would you like to see 20 or 30 people living on Franklin and Montgomery?
So, I mean, I think, put an end to this. I understand, look at the land, why not? Sure, you spent 10 grand, wasted money. The fact that we're even acquiring this property in the first place, nobody has come up with a good reason why we should buy it, other than it's next door, and that was probably the best reason to buy it. But here, kill it, move on, do the public works yard, do the remediation, because that's going to take forever. So thank you for doing that.
Why people would not want it to do that in the first place is beyond me. So please just keep moving on with the public works yard and get it done and put an end to this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Tangle.
Nobody else is on.
I guess I should start. So I agree that the property that this feasibility study researched is not appropriate. That doesn't mean that there's no property that is appropriate. I'm sorry, but let me tell you the idea behind it. Okay, we have wasted almost two years, and we have not broken ground. We can- Please,
let her talk.
Yeah, please, let me talk, since you guys got up here. If we were to build on a smaller lot that we owned, like we own the lot across the street from the McRae property, yes, it's, you know, .2 acres, you can fit a two-story, 30-unit space that is larger than the rooms that are now, the square footage is actually larger. If you were to have a prefabbed house built, you would cut your building time in half. There are prefab, yeah, yep, I mean, there's all the research I've spent the last two days because I met with Ruth and I met with Leanna on Sunday and I explained my idea to them and I did the research. There are prefab companies that build permanent supportive housing that build it within 8 to 12 months. Basically, if you were to do a cost analysis, you would find that it would be $2 million cheaper, the rooms would be bigger, and they would potentially have kitchens.
Yes, it would be on a smaller lot. Yes, it would be two stories. But the time that it would be built would be almost cut in half. So, you know, if you're, if you're, and everybody, I mean, they're prefabbed. They're put together already. If your highest priority, which, Ruth, you told me this was your highest priority. Let me just
stop you for one second. We just can't hear when you guys are talking in the audience, please, if you can, thank
you. If the highest priority is to get something built and get people in safe spaces, this is the way to do it. I mean, at some point you have to stop and say, this has not moved forward in any space of time or with any costs that are reasonable. Are we going to continue down this road, or are we going to try to think Take where we are now and think about what is a better option. We can prefab on 0.2 acres, two stories, in half the time, save $2 million. There are companies that do this in Rialto, California.
Or do we want to stay where we are? As Mr. Creasy explained, DTCS has 100 days before they have to respond. We don't even have a bid out. That assumes that that soil comes back clean. If it doesn't, then we're back into another process. I'm just saying. I'm a little bit upset that everybody, I've been on this project since day one and I've been a supporter since day one and now I have people getting up here saying I'm a NIMBY and I'm trying to do this and I'm trying to do that. I'm trying to do the best I possibly can for the people that are out there as soon as I possibly can and save the most money so that we can actually have operating expenses. I'm not looking to stop this project. But I am looking to say I have been completely disappointed for two years on how this project is moving.
Am I supposed to ignore that? Am I supposed to ignore that we're going to cost the taxpayers potentially $2 million more in a build with, you know, I won't say double the time, but at least six months to a year more time than a prefab costs. I'm trying to be diligent. I'm trying to be responsible. I'm trying to get this built. I'm trying to get people housed. And I don't believe in any way, shape, or form that that project in the lower maintenance yard done by Dignity Moves is going to get us there.
A prefab can have a kitchen. A prefab has more square footage. A prefab, if it were put on the west side, now I'm looking at other properties and I'm sure I'm going to hear about this, but if it were put on the west side of the Kent Hall campus, you would have the ADA, the ADA problems would not be there, as our expert said, right? So we don't have any ADA problems. Thank you very much.
3:26 – 3:3431 turns
Just
to close, I'm happy to give everybody my research, including specs, including drawings, including companies that
do
this.
Thank you. We're not having that conversation tonight about deciding a location, but I think I appreciate what you're saying, and it seems to me there's a lot. I mean, you've given your point of view, and we heard many other points of view.
Yeah, and I'm not interested in the McRae property any longer. I agree. I agree that it's not suitable. That was why we did a feasibility study. So no one is pushing for the McRae property any longer. But that's not to say that there aren't other available lots that we own that could work.
Well, I think we thank you we saw we heard a feasibility study I don't think anybody's arguing that we should be there and that's that point of this issue right now.
I don't have that argument.
Yeah I There was some Suggestion that the City Council in general is Chasing after foolish stuff and It wasn't my plan to come here and talk about shoving this project out of the McRae property, but that's what was on the agenda. I will, you know, like to point out missing from City Manager's review of the properties was one we actually had an agenda item for on Bryant, and that happened, we looked at that property like a year ago, and Leslie Rule gave as much anger towards the person who brought that forward, Kim Mang, as she just expressed at the community, but it wasn't, Her idea, it was Kim's idea. I want you to
please be productive. Hey, look, I don't remember doing that. No, no, no, no, no. Please stop. Wait. I don't remember doing that at all. I want you to bring something factual and interesting. The behavior will
never
stop unless
somebody says something about
it. That's what I, I don't want to have that conversation now.
Yeah, I will say that's
true. No, please. So, bring something forward that's substantive and not personal, if you can.
Okay, this project, as it's proposed, was extremely foolish.
We know you think that. End of story. Well, wait, totally fine. We got that. We know you believe that. Well, there's nothing for us to do on this item right now. So it seems to me we can actually move on.
I will just say a feasibility study is to get where you get, right? I mean, it's to actually explore the issue. So, excuse me. No, no, no.
It wasn't allowed when Kim
asked. It
wasn't me
that stopped it. Please stop, please stop.
It was our city attorney.
It seems to me, if I could just, I want to respond to something Mr. Harvey said, which is this. Every location that gets brought up, You hear people come out to point out the negatives, every single one, including tonight, including Brian, every single one. So to me, every one of those will have problems. What we're not hearing is, well, what about a prefab at the current site?
So if it's getting it faster and we have a location and it's bigger, and I believe there's other reasons for that, but that's an aside. There's nothing to do though now, so I would suggest that we move on to the next item.
And I would support a discussion around a potential prefab. I mean, I think the issues that I raised that caused me to want a feasibility study have not gone away. I
understand. Thank you for doing that work. OK, I'm going to propose that we move on to the next item.
Okay, so this is also, we're on to item number, what is this, 12? 11? 11.
We just did 10, now
we're on 11. Okay, thank you. And I believe we have Michelle Johnson with us. Yes, thank you. There's Miss Johnson. So, a request was made at the last Council meeting for a summary of the expenditures that Dignity Moves has drawn down on this project to date. And so, Ms. Johnson has done the work to compile those and summarize those, and they're now posted in a location that is easily accessible to all. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Johnson. I would also point out that I may ask I may ask Ms. Cho and or Ms. Billings to assist if questions arise on the financial side of things here. So, Mr. Seibert, maybe I could have you surrender your seat.
Thank you. To at least one of those two, maybe Ms. Cho, and then we'll have Ms. Johnson get underway. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Johnson, thank you.
Okay. Good evening, Mr. Mayor Gilman, members of the Council, Mr. Harvey, Mrs. Cervantes. Tonight, we're coming back with a request to look at Dignity Moves and the progress reports and then drilling down. So this report is broken up into three categories. One is the monthly progress reports that we have approved from Dignity Moves, that is progress reports from one through eight. And that's through Attachment A.
And then the second section is Attachment B, and that is drilling down into the breakdown of Dignamoo's payments, being their cost of admin fees versus the other subcontractors' design fees and the percentages between that. And the third cost is just breaking it down even farther just to their administrative fees. So with that, I'm going to go to the attachments.
And in the attachments on one through eight, we did find that there was some differences in the progress payments on seven and eight. And we have talked with Dignity Moves and we've made some changes that will go back to Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have the hard costs of, well, we have the whole time, Dignamoo's budget is $9.5 million. The hard cost for construction is budgeted at $7.8 million, and the soft cost is $1.6. So the percentages are hard costs, construction, 83%, and then administration and the design soft cost is 17%. We have spent 46% of the soft cost of $762,000.
The breakdown of the soft cost below is that the budget for Dignity Moves Admin Fees is $500,000, and then the subcontractor's $1.1 million, which is 30% and 70%. To date, we have spent $265,000, or 53%, in Dignity Moves Admin Fees, and the subcontractor's 43%, and that's a total of 46%. Total Dignity Moves overall spend to date is 8% of the total budget, the $9.5 million. Attachment C drills down farther and gives you all of the payments from products payments 1 through 8, and then shows the admin costs, where you see the $265,000 again.
And then you can see that it was about $30,125, the admin costs in the beginning, and then started with number eight, it reduced to $15,000, and then it projects to go to $15,006, all the way down to the end at $500,000. And with that, that is my presentation and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions?
3:34 – 3:4529 turns
It's just a receive. Receive and file.
That's right. And I just want to add we are now posting this information that there is a project landing page. I believe the link is contained within the agenda report. There is a financial documents section on that page and we are posting Not only the summary progress payments, but also the details that backs up each progress payment. We didn't include the detail in this agenda report simply because we didn't want a 400-page paper agenda report. But those are all on the website now.
And as we receive and approve progress payments, we will post them there immediately.
Any questions for staff?
And I am going all the way down to where it says Dignity Moves Development Fee, which is three from the bottom. And if I go across to where it says Amount Complete, and I go down on an X, Y axis, I get to a number where I'm believing it says Dignity Moves Development Fee. Amount complete, which I'm assuming is the amount that's been paid out, it says 343519, perhaps, maybe 518.
So I'm assuming that that means that's what they've spent. Is that what the column amount complete means?
This page we had revised. Some of the numbers were wrong in this document, so we've asked it to be clarified with a new document. But we have, that is the 33,349. That was
It's 343519, I think. 343519 is the number, if I can read it. I guess my question is, the first question is, does amount complete mean that that's the amount that's been spent to date? That's, I guess, my question. By dignity moves on the development fee.
I'm sorry. I can get back to you on that one.
Okay. And the only reason I ask is because the dignity moves on attachment C, the subtotal for admin costs is $265,625. So that is a different number if indeed the amount complete is supposed to be the amount spent and matched to that. And so that is my question.
Okay, I will verify that, but I have Those numbers, the 265, I know is correct, but that page is, we've requested a new page two because there's other items that we're not following. So I will get you under page two and make sure this is correct and answer your question. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
So I have a request. I went looking for what our service obligations are, what the city's service obligations are going to be when we do permanent supportive housing. So what is that supportive component? What have we promised to the state We're going to do for all of the residents who are in this project when it's completed, and I can't see anywhere where that's clearly spelled out, and I'd also like to see, you know, what the annual costs of providing those services are going to be, and I have not seen that.
So I can, we can certainly follow up. I don't have an answer for you on your first question, but we are projecting the annual costs for the permanent supportive housing project to be approximately $500,000 a year. We have discussed that previously. That is the number that is built into the ERF grant. We have a Operating set aside of 200, excuse me, $2 million, and that's $500,000 for four years after the project is built for us to use to pay for the operations of it.
That's our estimate based upon the rough cost, you know, from what it takes to operate OTT, as well as discussions from groups like Many Mansions that operate these type of facilities, just trying to roughly determine what it may cost.
It's, as I understand it, it's a forever cost. We'll be, so until the structure fades into the earth and no one can stay there anymore, we're paying an annual cost every year for a very extended period.
Well, hopefully if it fades into the earth and no one is living there, we're not paying for no one to live there. But what the thought is, in having permit supportive housing, we've talked about this before, that particular label is important because that opens the city's eligibility for funding potentially from the county and other sources. The city is currently not eligible for funding because we just have a sanctioned homeless encampment. So much as we would like the county to pay for our OTT, they won't, neither will the state, until we create permanent supportive housing. So that is the goal and then we're hopeful, and again there aren't guarantees, but we're hopeful that we will be eligible for funding.
So I understand that goal, but my belief is that we need to know all of the services that we've promised to perform so that we can make an assessment which will fall under which spending category so that we can plan for our future because it's going to impact every budget we have for
the
next 20, 30 years.
Understood. So, assuming that we move forward with the project, and I certainly hope we do, the next big step in the project lifespan will be developing an RFP for an operator, a third-party operator to operate this. And that will be part of what is, you know, comprised in the RFP, what is expected. And we will base this upon other similar type developments and the requests that have been issued elsewhere.
And then we'll get a response back. And that's, you know, that will contain the detail of what will be involved with trying to run this facility. But we heard Council's direction in this area. Council wants a third-party operator. So do we. We think that's what needs to happen. And so that, you know, assuming that we get past bid ratification, that is the next logical step.
If I could add, the county has already told us this answer, which is they are asking us to use up this ERF grant funding, then we become more eligible to apply for their help. They've said that to us several times. And the services that we are providing are similar to the services we're providing already right now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Like, just as a case in point, that was two and a half million dollars over three years. That wasn't one talk of budget. We all said, great, let's do it. And so what I'm saying is, it sounds a little bit like a red herring to me when we bring up budget things that we don't want to do. But the things we do like to do, they don't come.
So don't plan, is what you're saying.
No, do you hear my point about climate tech
now? I hear your point about not planning for what these costs are going to be and not knowing what they are.
You're not responding to my climate tech concern. Well, what I'm saying is if the county would have given you $12.7 million, would you still be
concerned? Yeah, I would be concerned because that money is the start-up cost. It's not the annual cost. I understand that, but it's a start-up cost. And that was my objection from the beginning with this project, is that we did not have I get that. We didn't decide what services as a 7,500 person city we should be
providing. You're making the same
arguments
you've made in the past. I hear that. That's true. I hear it. I hear it. We all get it. So we understand your position there.
I'm asking for information is all I'm asking for. And it's the information that will be provided again.
One thing that I think is an important consideration here, too, as we're talking about ongoing services, is that what we've already done is we've already contracted with Help of Ojai, with Ventura County Behavioral Health Services, and really, I mean, I think if we want to look at ongoing services and costs, what was happening before we had TentTown was that everything was defaulting on our nonprofit organizations.
And I think, you know, that probably there's going to be a lot of collaboration with the nonprofits. If we do go with many mansions, they've had successful projects in other Ventura cities where they do fundraising. And so even though it's not a guarantee, and I totally respect what you're saying with wanting to have a guarantee of looking at a long-term budget, I'm not suggesting that we piecemeal things or that we just hang on hope.
We have enough to get us through four years given the projected budget for the maintenance of the property, Cleaning services, et cetera, for behavioral health. And that gives us four years to, or a future council, four years to strategize, you know, what comes next.
3:45 – 3:5118 turns
I just want to make clear, I'm not trying to debate the point of whether we should engage in those expenditures. I just want to know everything I can possibly know about what they're going to be. So I can look at when I'm told, hey, it's all going to be taken care of. I want to have my own confidence that we're OK with, you know, that we're going to be OK. So I do work every day in an industry where, you know, individual small facilities, health care facilities, try to survive.
And they are deeply disadvantaged because they don't have economies of scale. We experience that every two weeks and more where, you know, we're a small town, so it's hard to get all the information we want. All I'm trying to do is ask for information so that I can do whatever work I can do to understand if there are Councilmember Patterson?
Councilmember Patterson? Councilmember Patterson? And we say, well, I don't know what the budget is. I'm concerned. Like, I'm afraid we're out of money. And the staff is telling us we're not. Then, if we're not going to believe them, well, who are we going to believe? So, you could be upset or whatever, but I guess I'm trying to say, let's just be honest about, if you don't, if somebody doesn't like a project, I'm hearing you say, you're not talking about the project. Let's just be honest and say, I don't want to do it. Not that we're out of money.
Because when there's something that we want. No, yeah, he has said that. So I hear it actually pretty frequently.
I think I'm talking about our money just about every meeting we have, and I have deep concerns.
I know, that's why I was trying to bring up the climate tech, though. That was a huge project. And there wasn't one peep about the money.
Well, we shouldn't debate this because it's not on the agenda, but one of the things about the Climate Tech Project is that it was equipment that was dead. I mean it was still operating but barely. I voted yes. And so it was an expense we had to
undertake. Not in the fullness of it. But I'm happy to do it. So I'm still with the same point. Mayor and Council, if I could just jump in really
quickly. So I recorded a question, and Council Member Whitman will correct me if I got this wrong, but I think what I heard was, you know, what are the City's service obligations when we have built a permanent supportive housing project development?
And I think they're spelled out in the grant, and
I just
can't find
it. It's fine. I'm happy to go through and provide you and your colleagues, you know, with my best. You know, I'm going to call HCD as well, because I want to make sure I get it correct.
And I'd like to post it on the page once, you
know. And it'll probably be kind of stuff that you've heard me talk about before, but I'll put it all in one spot, obviously. It'll be case management. It'll be access to services. It'll be, you know, What you'd probably think it would be, but I will detail that and I'll make sure that they agree. And I'll send it to you all. I'm happy. Thank you.
I do realize this is not a decision item, but we also did not take public comment yet on this item. We have two
public
comments.
Mike Donahue, please, and then Clay Creasy.
Good evening. Hello. As you know, I'm a mental health advocate, a mental health champion. I'm also an adjunct professor that teaches leadership. I agree with Rachel in the back, we need to improve tent town. We should get hard shelves over those Kansas tents. We should get them air conditioning all the time. The way we spend money on legal fees, accounting, everything else, my God, it can't be that hard.
But tonight, let me start by saying you, Council, you are not alone. Other smart, well-intentioned people have stumbled trying to solve this extremely difficult problem, housing the unhoused. But here, tonight, my point is on May 27th, the majority of this Council voted for a project that has not materialized. What the majority voted on was a building specification, a contracted budget, and a schedule, all which have not materialized, not even close to materializing.
I believe you were misled. I don't think intentionally, but misled nonetheless on May 27th. I think this cause is great, helping people that need help, but this project is a disaster. Let's look at what the City Manager said, the City Attorney said on May 27th. And the City Manager. I got a little video clip here that I think I might be able to play.
3:51 – 3:5713 turns
When they come back with a budget, can we say no? I mean, let's say they hit the parameter of the amount of money. So I'm a little confused about that. We're saying, here's a contract. The condition is you come back to us with a buildable budget for 9.5. Do we really have the option to say, well, you know, we don't like that budget?
I'm going to let Ms. Anderson answer, but the budget needs to be consistent with what is provided for within the Development Management Agreement. And so it's going to have to be consistent with the design that was vetted by the Planning Commission and reviewed by the City Council. It's going to have to be consistent with the cap that we've established for the entire project. It's going to have to consider, excuse me, it's got to be consistent with the materials that they have committed to using in the project and the features that are in the project. It's going to provide the granularity that you need to see so you can understand where the expenditures are going to be, including, you know, this is how much it's going to cost per unit, this is what it's going to cost for the common areas, etc., etc.
Ms. Anderson, do you want to elaborate there?
So, after the August 30th deadline comes, before that time, we can terminate the agreement without cause if they don't deliver the budget. Actually, that's not... I said that wrong.
I'll need you to stop Mr. Donahue. Thank you though. Please do. Give us the conclusion. Thank you. Mr. Creasy.
Thank you. Number one, of course, I'm happy to see this improved level of transparency with regard to these invoices from Dignity Moves. I actually, as some of you may know, had to file a Public Records Act request to get them, you know, a few weeks before this disclosure happened. I will point out that even though Attachment A says it has invoices 1 through 8, it only had 1 through 7. Number 8 was missing. I don't know if it's been added more recently, but I know the package that I downloaded a few days ago did not have that.
More substantively, Attachment B, which ostensibly shows budget numbers, those budget numbers are not equal to the budget numbers that Dignity Moves shows in their budget exhibit that they submit with each draw request. Specifically, they have a budget, and it's admittedly tiny letters, so you have to pull out your magnifying glass. It's $9.8 million round numbers, not 9.5. And probably the major, but not the only, increase is that they finally threw in the towel on the sanitation charges and agreed that what I said way back when was in fact true.
More importantly, the bids that have come in, which have not been talked about now, they've been kicked down the road until April 14th, are above the numbers that Dignity Moves has in their budget here. So, not only are they telling you right now it's going to be over budget, just wait until you review the bids. It'll be even more over budget. So, I'm telling you this because you need to figure out what you're going to do about that rather than show up on the 14th and go, oh, son of a gun, somebody picked my pocket.
I will remind you Finally, blowing my horn very slightly, it was a little over a year ago that I told Mr. Harvey that he had $15 million in a non-interest bearing checking account that both violated the City's investment policy Ann was costing the city more than half a million dollars of lost interest per year. He fairly quickly after that fixed that, which I thought was very admirable on his part, and I salute him for doing that. It was last June that I pointed out to you that Dignity Moves was not obeying the law with regard to bidding processes.
It took a little while to figure that out, but it got there. You need to audit the bills that Dignity Moves is charging you, because they've charged you for legal fees from 2024, six months before the DMA was signed. Those are not development costs per the DMA. It is fraud for somebody to charge you a bill that they know you don't owe, and it's irresponsible to pay it.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Creasy.
Anybody
online?
Yes, we have Sue Williamson.
Okay.
Go ahead, Sue, unmute yourself.
Yeah, two things. I'm really tired of hearing about, from Mr. Whitman, asking for predictions. I don't think anyone can predict the future. I think it's a total red flag, a total, I'm sorry, red herring. He keeps throwing in this mix. And it seems to me it's pretty obvious prices are only going to go up if you keep procrastinating and don't follow any kind of a timeline and keep sitting up there having these ridiculous conversations Asking unanswerable questions and not proceeding on in a timely fashion. Really, of course prices are going to go up every time you keep postponing, especially with what's going on in the world, gas prices, everything else is going to go up.
So, the longer you wait, the more it's going to cost, and that you cannot put on dignity moves. That is on you guys. Thank you.
Thank you.
3:57 – 4:0241 turns
There is
no one else. OK, thank you.
I wanted just to point out about costs that the bids that we got have expired. It's a 60 day window.
No,
they have not expired. No, it's not a 60 day
window.
It's 120 days.
That's
in the contract.
That was in the bid documents that were sent out.
OK. I shall review that.
So this was a receiving file. I don't know if there's more conversation, but we're at 10 o'clock. We have to decide what would happen on these items that if they were to postpone to another day. You
know, I would say my vote is we just do my item and then we go home and walk our dogs.
Do you want to do both of them then? I don't care.
I don't think we need to do the city policy because, you know, other than me, no one. Right. And then we're going to have to read through it. And other than me, I don't think anybody's got anything coming up. So but I'm you know, if people want to do the city policy, the
city. Quick question. Can the soil remediation be added to our next special session?
Well, I mean, this causes, I mean, this is an example of introducing a delay. I would recommend that we, I would actually ask, I know it's late, I'm sorry, but I would ask that we hear 13. I would ask that we hear 14.
Because
both those impact our operations.
They do, but they also require some clear thinking, and it's getting fuzzier as it gets later.
The soil remediation actually seems sort of clear to me.
But it's not.
I
hate to say that,
but... You don't feel it is, is what you're saying. I do not feel it is. That is correct.
Because of the questioning the project overall?
Because of a discrepancy in the administrative report on what levels were found of lead.
Well, I'm proposing that we spend time on 13.
So what would happen if we, you have concerns about delaying that one?
I do. I think that this is something that we need to bring forward to move the project forward. We've gone through all the steps in the process. We received a bid amount that was overall favorable compared to what we thought it might be. As well as an oversight amount from the state that is below the number that we expected them to charge as well. Delaying this, the longer that you wait to remove that soil, the longer you wait to build the project. If Council accepts that, then I just I want to be on the record that you're understanding that you're doing that because the 14th is a very full agenda and I don't I don't know how I mean we could put that in there it's possible it's just it's already a very long evening that
I'm asking I'm asking that we address 13 and then then stop and see where we're at and see if we want to do more okay I have a second for 13 Okay let's do the staff report on 13
please.
I was suggesting that we we just do one at a time and then see where we're at on the next
one.
What are you thinking of?
Okay, so we've renumbered things, so actually, what was nine, is that number 13? I'm talking about the soil.
The current number 13. Okay, got it, thank you. So we've skipped 12.
And if I may, with 12, we did have a brief presentation that we could upload to the agenda and, you know, just share with Council. It was really informational, and I don't know that we have to bring that back. We can just provide the information.
On which point?
On number 12.
Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah.
4:02 – 4:0818 turns
Yes, thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'll keep the presentation brief. Discussion potentially long. Questions as well. But important, obviously. The proposal you have before you tonight is the remediation soil excavation located at 611 South Montgomery Street. And it's really an award of a contract. And that is for two things. As the recommendation identifies, authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract agreement with Pacific Petroleum of California Incorporated, resulting from the notice of inviting bids that came through the Community Development and then the specification piece. It is a remedial soil excavation in an amount not to exceed $123,146.
$146 for a project located again at 611 South Montgomery Street. In addition to that is authorizing the city manager to execute a standard voluntary agreement for the California Department of Toxic Substance or DTSC for the monitoring of the work performed at the subject site and an amount not to exceed $39,161. The The bid document went out in February. We received six bids. Of those six bids, Pacific Petroleum of California came in as the lowest responsive responsible bidder, and that's what you have before you tonight. I would like to note, and to one of the council members' points, there was an error in the report, and really it's less of an error and more of a... So there was two soil reports that were put together. The first one was identifying that, yes, one of the areas, which was the lead area, was over the 83 parts per million within a specific area, was identified as 83.
Well, then, when we did the bore-out, which was basically going beyond that central core area, it was identified that levels were much higher than that. So, to that point, you are correct.
It
shows that we're barely over that which then triggers it once we did the follow-up boring. So there was a report in March and then another report that came back towards the end of April. That report in April was much more detailed and then showed that extensive boring which then led to the phasing plan and everything that you're seeing that went forward with the bid.
I just want to point out that those levels were 106, 170, and 168. I just think it's important to say that they're not 80 or 83. Yeah, that's all. Thank you.
And I guess the question I'm also having is, upon finding this information when this process started, that's something that I'm assuming we would want to be doing anyway to clear that site, whether something was going to be built there immediately or not.
So these are, this is assuming, and this is a part of the permanent supportive housing project as residential. See, these are the residential levels, if you recall when it was being discussed with Raycon before.
Okay. And so those are more stringent?
Yes.
Okay.
It does give us options down the road if for some reason we didn't build residential there. I mean, I think to your point, it makes sense to clear up toxicity since we're in the process now, whether or not we clear it up for the highest level of residential or whether or not we clear it up for commercial, it still makes sense to move forward given that we've done so much work already.
So, you know, yeah. I'm agreeing with you.
Yeah, and I'm agreeing. Thank you for that. I'm agreeing except for that I probably would go to the residential clean level.
Oh, I definitely would too. Oh, no, no. I was just saying, yeah, even if we don't, even if it were to be commercial, we don't know that. So it makes sense to go to the residential level and keep our options as open as we can.
Thank you. Public comment before we discuss. I
have one question. On page 267, item B, it says to the extent that the work requires trenches in excess of 5 feet, do we know how, what is the proposed depth?
So the depth went as far as five feet, and that's where the lead concentration had ended. Now they will, in talking with RINCON and with DTSC, they will chase it to the point to where they no longer find it as they're going out and doing their testing. So it's not expected to go beyond, below the five feet, but if it does, then we're looking at shoring.
And you'll get notified, I presume.
Yes. Look, I'm not the project manager. It will be a combination of RENCON and if this body approves DTSC to also be working with that, which is highly recommended given that we will need to report back to them. Having them a part of this from the very beginning makes logical sense.
Any more questions for staff? I have two cards, Clay Creasy and Mike Donahue.
4:08 – 4:1510 turns
Hopefully just a few quick questions. I appreciate everybody working past 10 o'clock. Number one, I think it's worth finding out why it took six months after the contract with RINCON was approved to facilitate this bid process to the bid process actually happening. I do recall, Mayor Gilman, that you and I had coffee one day in December-ish, I think it was, or maybe November, and I asked you that question. Why is it taking so long to do this? Because even though people, you know, you heard Larry Steingold say that, you know, he's as nimby as anybody else, so I'm not going to claim I'm, you know, Simon Pure on that stuff, but I do want to get this project done. And if it takes six months to do a relatively simple RFP, there has to be a process problem that you guys need to fit.
Point number one. Point number two, this contract has no provision for cost parameters, assuming more lead is found. So it has a certain amount of, you know, 130 yards or whatever it is. You're going to agree to dig this for X dollar. But it's a not-to-exceed contract at $129,000 or whatever it is. What if you find more lead? Now you don't have the guy nailed down to $10 per yard or something. You have him nailed down to nothing. So he can charge you anything he wants, and it's going to be tough. So I would suggest if you haven't actually signed on the dotted line yet, you ought to say, oh, by the way, we want to insert a clause that says extra yards are not going to cost any more than that. It's up to you guys to figure that out. Third thing is, you need as clear a schedule as possible.
The TTSC schedule is about as clear as the dirt that they'll be digging. And it says in there that they have 100 days to respond after you get all the lab tests and all that stuff back to them. The fieldwork is supposed to finish on May 1st, I think it is. How much time after May 1st till the lab results get shipped to DTSC in the way they require them, and then how long is it going to take them? I think to manage the expectations of everybody who wants this project done yesterday. You need to be able to say, here's the schedule, and unlike the Dignity Moves schedules, this one is actually the one that's going to be adhered to. Those are my thoughts. Thank you.
I look at this issue and like if I was in your shoes and I'm thinking, okay, I got to approve a subcontractor or contractors, I know this is out of the DMA, and we're going to do lead remediation and we're going to do it now. We're going to approve a contract for six figures. And then I'd be asking myself, isn't there supposed to be something that's done like in September, like on September 9th in this meeting? Do you remember how colorful that meeting was? I've only been here three times in six months. It was intense. One person snapped on another. You're jeopardizing this project.
The budget was rejected. It was due at the end of August. It was rejected on September 9th. It's never been done. My dad used to say, it's the principle, Mike. It's the principle of the issue. He was a very smart guy. The principle of this is how can you approve a subtask before the main development Budget required in writing per Article 1, page 2 of the DMA to be agreed to by all parties. It hasn't been done.
Where is that partner? If I was them in their shoes on September 9th, and I had my hat handed to them like they did that day, and the budget was rejected in schedule, I would have been working my butt off to get that done. That was over six months ago. So now we have no budget still in place. Have you guys seen one? Because it's supposed to be signed and filed and agreed to in writing per Article 1 of the definition of the term, what a development budget is.
And where is it? But we're going to go approve a subtask, even though the big task hasn't been defined. So it's the principle of the matter. I hope you vote properly.
Thank you, sir. Anybody online?
Yes, sir. Mayor, we have Larry Steingold.
Okay. Go
ahead, Larry.
Thank you. My name was said in vain. No, first time. I'm not a nimby about this. The fact is that this environmental, the phase one should have been done once the public works yard had been approved as a site. That would have been the first thing. It should have taken all of five minutes to do the phase one and says, hey, do the phase two. This could have been done a year and a half ago.
And then it was bounced around and then all of a sudden it was exclusive. You can't do this because of sequent. Oh, no, no. You've got to do the phase two because residential people are going to live there. At this point, I'm not sure what the laws are in the state of California, but I'm pretty sure you have to get rid of the lead and the asbestos now that you've discovered it.
And that's not by choice now. And I do believe Lucas has done a yeoman's work And now you have to do it. Maybe. But you're going to go forward with this, because if this is where the housing project is going to be, then you have to do the phase one. Excuse me, the remediation. So that's where you are, and I hope it goes well. And when they start doing construction, they're going to have to do more testing, and hopefully they won't be led there.
Then you have to be concerned about runoff coming from the The public works yard that's not being taken over, it's all downhill. So you're going to have to do some berming there because runoff from oils and waters and whatever else public works stores on their industrial parcel, which they can, needs to be kept off the residential land. So that's another piece of the puzzle, but it's got to get done.
But again, this thing should have been done a year and a half ago. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Stengel.
There's no one else on the line. Okay,
thank you. So I'm looking at the fiscal impact and it says that it's, this is on page 263, and it's under the 12.7 ERF.
4:15 – 4:2026 turns
That's correct. This qualifies as technical studies that are allowable grant reimbursement expense and it's in our budget for the RF grant.
I have to ask, why has it taken so long to get to this stage of the game?
I wondered that myself. The fact that it's been eight months is quite illuminating, considering all the things that we've gone through over the last eight months. Did this get swept under the rug? Absolutely not. Were we working behind the scenes to understand what that bid process looked like for this? Yes. Were we also working on other projects with a small staff? Yes.
So to assume that we're sitting on our hands is a little bit heavy-handed, coming from the community, but I will say this, that at no point in time when we were going through this did we sit here and spin our wheels regarding it. Well,
I want to also add in a lot of the time was spent negotiating with the state on what the fee was going to be and what was going to be involved, and there was a lot of back and forth with them.
Yeah, but that's one piece to the puzzle. I mean, I'm happy to do that. I mean, these are meetings that obviously are within the CDD department roles and responsibilities. Eight months does seem like a long time, but there's been a lot of things that have been going on. So, scheduling this and getting this to the point to where it was ready to be bid, while it sounds simple, I mean, this is a 115-page document that went out to bid, and it needed to be reviewed by all parties, right? And it needed to be vetted by all parties.
So, we wanted to make sure we were following that process to a
T. So, to Mr. Creasy's point, if more lead is found and they're digging deeper, How's the charging mechanism? Does the project stop until we get approval?
No, it's not. That's not going to stop. What it could be is a change order and then we'd evaluate that from that
standpoint. And if I may add to that, the agreement that is being recommended for approval here incorporates what we call the Green Book and I will get the exact name of that wrong. It is in the packet, the reference to that. But that technical specification document does include specific requirements related to how change orders are processed and approved for additional work.
So not too much work would happen. In other words, we would do what we needed to do to avoid any big surprises.
Right. We're not anticipating any big surprises, but it's interesting when you look at a plume that's subterranean. It's funny, when I was having that conversation with Rincon several months ago, the conversation was, are we assuming that it's in the middle, or are we assuming that it's at the edge? What are we looking at here? So they made a fairly educated understanding given the borings that have been done a part of, so there's a first piece and then the extended borings help to really solidify the areas. So they have, they believe that they have a pretty good handle on that area where this lead is concentrated. So, yeah.
That's encouraging. Yes,
please. So I feel like we need to get this done anyway. It's something that would need to be done. No matter what, I mean, if we turn that into offices, if we whatever, whatever happens, it just it's something that we need to remediate. So. I would put a motion on the table.
I'd second it.
OK,
I second it. That's what I need to say.
And I'm open to discussion, but I just wanted to move this forward.
Same here.
I'm in agreement.
OK, so is it. They do the excavation and then they like do the testing on the margins to
Yeah,
they'll have it expected to be clear then.
Correct. They have the equipment. They'll do those on the on the walls to assure and as well as on the floor as well to ensure that that's been removed.
Any more discussion? No. OK. Roll call, please. Yeah.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0
Show transcript
Thank
you. Okay, what's our appetite? So Mr. Harvey has asked for us to consider 14 and Ms. Rule has asked us to consider, did you say you wanted to not consider 8 and go to 9?
Yeah, I'm saying that that I don't think 8 is
4:20 – 4:2411 turns
Eight is the policy and nine is the actual event.
I don't think that we need to go over the policy if we approve the one-off, you know.
And the policy, your suggestion, is the policies for another time?
Yeah, I mean, since no one's lining up, we can kick that down the road.
I'm up for 9. I mean I'm happy to do 9 and 14.
Okay
all right so let's go to number 9.
Council Member Rule, I'm gonna kick this over directly to you if that's okay with you.
So we have as one of our communication goals that we would have sort of city sponsored and hosted by city council member or members to have town halls around issues that were of concern to the community so that we would Give the community an opportunity to speak longer than three minutes and perhaps have some back and forth and some questions and to get some clarity on issues that, you know, might not be agendized items for the City Council but that the community needed to speak to.
So, given where we are now, I suggested, I felt strongly that we really wanted to have a conversation with local law enforcement and ICE and the interaction in both theory and practice and get a real sense from our local law enforcement how they were approaching things so that the community would have a clearer understanding. So I put something together. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
But feel a sense of sort of urgency around it. So it was suggested that if I wanted to move forward prior to actually getting the policy approved, that I just go ahead and sort of base what I was doing on the policy generally. And that's where we are now. So my proposed community town hall is local law enforcement and ICE. And I think you see who was invited and accepted and that I potentially might expand that out to the DA to get a sense of, I mean, I don't have to go into specifics, but I would like to get a record sort of for the future on what we actually know and what we don't know. So I thought the DA might be willing to speak to that. And since he had done an article in the paper, it made sense that he might want to come and talk to the community.
So that's kind of where I am. I do have a format that I have, you know, spoken to Chief Jenkins about, we worked through, you know, what we thought would be an appropriate format, you know, to keep the free-flowing communication, but not allow it to get out of control or have someone monopolize the conversation. So I've worked through the format, and it's here for you, and I'm happy to take any questions.
And you're gonna reach out to Congressman Carbajal, potentially?
Yes, and you know, he was just here, and so yeah, I'm gonna reach out to him. I think, you know, things have escalated with the putting of ICE into the airports, and I'm curious to know what he's, just from a federal level, right? So he's a federal level. And then we have a county level and, you know, then a real local level. So, yeah, I'm going to reach out. I have not yet. So we'll see. OK.
I just think it's important that we understand, just understand where we all are on this in a conversation.
4:24 – 4:3013 turns
So, and then just the issue, generally speaking, related to the policy, but to this event is, if it's a city event, using city resources, like you could do this anytime you wanted, if people came that you invited, but you want it to be part of what the city's up to.
I do, I want it to be a community conversation with the city because I think it is, it is that, it is important to the city. I get that. And so yeah, I mean, I could, I could have my own conversation. But I wanted this to be, you know, I want the city to be part of it. I think it's really important that that be done, and I also think that, you know, there'll be a level of seriousness to it. I won't say gravity, but, you know, people will take it seriously, and they will respond and act, you know, more seriously than if it's, you know, it's late, so instead of, you know, instead of Leslie just throwing the party. So I'm just going to say that.
I understand what you're saying, and I get it, and I think it's an important topic, but I just worry, like, is this going to bring unwanted attention? Like, I know it needs to be discussed, but I worry about what will happen bringing, you know, all of these people into town discussing it. Like, could it open us up to something?
I don't know. I mean, I don't think so. I think we'll have three local law enforcement agents here, and it's not meant to be confrontational, so the outreach will be, you know, a conversation, and the idea is, you know, just really Briefly, is that questions will come in, they'll be vetted, but then the person who actually submitted the question will be, I will hold the microphone and ask them to actually ask the question so that they are an active participant in it, which would also allow me to stop them from going on and on and on. And so then, you know, that allows me to control the flow of the conversation without it being them separate.
I don't foresee trouble. You know, I mean, the thing about it is, is that if we're going to have important conversations, I mean, Sheriff Fryhoff was just at, he just had, you know, an open discussion with the Democratic Club about ICE. I don't think that there was any issue there. Well,
I was gonna say, like, on that point that she's talking about, I was on my way back from out of town and I wanted to make it, I couldn't make it, but I texted the chief, or the sheriff, rather. I thought it'd be packed and Connor was there. There was like 20 people there. So, I don't know that it's gonna generate, well, I hope it does. Yeah, I
don't know either. I mean, you know, I think the more you keep it into theory as well as practice, like, you know, the discussion of, that's why I put theory in there, is that I wanna talk about the theories, the sort of, you know, philosophical and political science theories behind what's going on as well. What
about the people? I would like to reach out to the people that are truly scared and afraid to go to work or staying inside, keeping their children from school because they're afraid. I can't imagine them attending. You know what I mean? I think that could be more bang for your buck, sort
of
thing, to help protect these people so they have a clear understanding.
Well, that's one of the reasons why I should come to the city, because it can be broadcast, and people can zoom in. Will it
be in Spanish as well?
It certainly can be. In fact, the person that I was thinking about getting to co-present or something was Severo, and he's fluent Spanish. There's other people. But honestly, yeah, that can be provided. But I will also point out that this body, I don't think, is meant to approve of topics. I think this body is meant to approve a process. And unless there's something egregious, I don't think that we're all coming, from my understanding of the policy, is we're not coming here for approval for the particular presentation. As long as we're following the process and it's not truly egregious, you know what I mean?
So that's also one of the reasons why we could go through the policy. But my understanding of it, as I said, is that we're not looking for permission on this particular content. Although having certain input in what it looks like and how the formation of it is certainly important.
I get what you're saying, and I agree in part. I guess I would say that if the city's putting it on, Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us.
4:30 – 4:3619 turns
Put them in a room where they feel safe. You know, what do you
certainly could I mean, and those are those are good ideas I mean, I would say and I and I don't know that that they would be comfortable through zoom, you know But but they would probably be more comfortable through zoom I wouldn't even I I wouldn't expect that Thank you.
to do it via Zoom, you know what I mean?
Yeah, and I would say we find someone who has, you know... Who is
that
person? I know back
in the day, you know, the families that were very prominent that, you know, had that connection, I'm kind of out of the
loop. Well, and I also thought of, I can't remember her name, but Help Vojai, who's a fluent Spanish speaker. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Alicia, I think. Yeah. These are, it sounds like those are marketing questions. You can promote it.
Yeah, and it would be promoted, but that was also, when I was thinking about those exact questions, you know, how do we outreach, and so, you know, we need to have a fluent Spanish speaker who can translate, you know, is Savarro, he's well-trusted, he's been here forever, he's the next mayor, you know, and I've spoken to him about it, I haven't moved it forward because I haven't really had, you know, the permission or Alicia, or
whomever. Well, and depending on availability, we do have a couple. Members of staff who are fluent, one who might be it that dies here with us.
That would be perfect. It would be great to have a member of staff. Who is
that? Could you share? Who would
that
be? Norma,
is it you? Okay. Well, see, I did not know that, but that would be lovely.
I attended a community forum this past weekend. And I think that our Congressman Carbajal did expect a open and respectful dialogue. And I'm not sure that that's what was delivered to him. Where was it? It was at the Matiloha cafeteria. There was an organized effort to come in and call him a war criminal. And so I don't want to put our law enforcement in that position.
And I also, I also, so I'm going to back up for a second because I care about the constitutional rights of Everybody in our community, as much as anybody in our community, I do have my fear and concern that if whatever happens at this event gains, you know, certain vindictive people's spotlight, that it might make it absolutely worse Presentation by law enforcement.
That's not the gig. The gig is a town hall. The gig is not a presentation. So I'm happy that you prefer that, but that's not what we agreed to, and our goals are tactics, and it's not what I'm talking about here. You know, Fear and the fear of doing things is what they're counting on. I'm not going to do anything because, you know, it might bring, this is going to be a calm event. I think, you know, this is going to be a calm event.
So, I don't know what to say. Yes, there's always, can always find a reason, can always object, can always say this, can always say that, but that's not what our goals and tactics, that's not what we agree to, that's not what the policy says, and I'm gonna leave it at that.
So I actually talked to Council Member Rule about bringing this forward with her because, or helping her with this, because I've had so many people ask me, text me, call me, run into me at the park and say, what's the city doing? Are we doing enough? And so I think that there are just some natural questions that are on people's minds. I was at the event with you, Council Member Whitman, and it did turn in a different direction, which was really disappointing.
But I think having Sheriff Fryhoff and Steve Jenkins, Chief Abbott, I think having three police officers there definitely is going to probably make it hard for people who have fear to come. And so I agree with you that we're going to have to do something to reach the people who would have reservations. But I think it could naturally keep things in a more peaceful
4:36 – 4:4327 turns
One thing I liked about the policy, which we're not talking about at this moment, but if two council people are working on something, again, you use the word egregious, as long as it's not egregious, then I have confidence in it, if there's two people that wanted to work on it. So if I'm hearing you guys say, oh yeah, you want to collaborate and do this thing, I'm totally fine with that. If any two people wanted to do something, I would say, oh, that's kind of our policy, that's a threshold.
I had a very long discussion with Andrew Belknap about how do we engage with the most vulnerable of the community and how do we get them to participate and feel safe. You know, even assuming that they want to participate in this discussion, maybe they just really want to know what I want to convey, which is the interaction between ICE and, you know, local law enforcement and what they're thinking, so that when they see...
Tyler. They're not scared. They don't think that he's on, you know, that he's ICE. They know he's not. They know that he's the chief of police in Ojai.
And that's what I want. It's that I think our organization, we decided, we thought it was possibly too hot to do right this moment. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I was saying, because we also wanted a nice person on there too. Just so you know, like say, oh, I want to hear from a regional ICE person to explain their position on these things.
Andrew reached out for me and there was no...
Who did?
Andrew.
Oh, good. Well, anyway, just to say, I personally, I am supportive of it. I am supportive of it with two council people. That makes sense.
I just had another thought. I think the letter went out with OUSD because children were missing school because their parents were afraid to send them. So I'm just wondering if it could be a thought to partner with the school district because they have a form in place for parents so that children are coming back to school. So maybe like if you can come here or if you feel safe knowing that the rules are already set up through OUSD and like splice them together type of thing.
And
I thought about that because they have, but it seemed to expand the scope to the point where it was a different, it was kind of a different conversation, actually, because I think that the school district needs to have that conversation with their parents and their teachers and their students, which I know they have. But I don't think it's the same conversation that we're having here.
Your goal, if your goal is specific, you could say, oh, there's many goals that there'll be future events for new goals. Yeah.
You know, the idea was certainly to, you know, invite Atticus or whomever, you know, Blair, and give them an opportunity to ask questions if they wanted to put something into the question or concept into the ether. You know what I mean?
A couple of things that make me feel more secure about this. One, that all the questions are being vetted, and so we can avoid the situation that happened at the town hall that we went to where we didn't know where the questions were going. So that's one thing. And then also, I think if it is running through the city, then we have a different mindset going into it. I mean, if I'm doing this as a representative of the city, I'm going to put a lot less of my own political thoughts into it. Like, I'm going to keep it as, you know, as open as possible to different perspectives and stick to the city's policy, the care policy.
It's informational.
Yeah, informational.
I know that's probably less passionate than you're hoping for.
I'm interested in what Chief Abbott has to say. We've had a few of these conversations in public already. Just in general about whether you feel like it would be productive, more likely to do good, to have this type of forum where the community can come and ask questions.
I believe it's very important. For sure, you've got to acknowledge people are very insecure, very uncomfortable with it. From my perspective and the Sheriff's Office perspective, the message has been very clear. Although it's a complicated topic, it's very clear, simple for us in that sense. We will not do any field-level immigration enforcement. The Sheriff's been clear. Our policy is clear. State law is clear. We follow all of that. But having said that, if there's one citizen that we can help alleviate some concerns, answer some questions, I would be more than happy to do it and be a part of something.
And I think just the city supporting you and you supporting the city is really important for the community to see. You know, I think that that's also very true, that there is a trust still here with you and you with us. It really strengthens, you know, the city. It's a good bond to have. It's a good bond to show. And I think we can leverage that experience between both of us, and it will
help people see that. I'd like to propose that I guess the motion would be to work with staff on logistics.
Did we take public comment on
this? Yes, right. I don't have any public comments. Is there anybody online? I propose that we proceed and that you work with staff on the planning and logistics. That's the
motion.
Any more discussion? All right, roll call please.
Roll-call vote Passed 3–0 motion. Any more discussion? All right, roll call · 2 under review
Show transcript
OK, we'll do our last item, which is 14.
We'll be very fast. Ms. Cho, do you want to come
up?
Mr. Seidrich, can we swap you out?
4:43 – 4:456 turns
Ms. Cho, thank you for staying so
late.
It's appreciated. Want to
go
ahead?
Mayor, City Council Member, thank you for considering this item tonight. This is related to the Professional Service Agreement with Ida Bailey. January 13th, City Council had approved Amendment No. 1 to their contract, which increased the contract amount to $167,000. At that time, the scope of services was also limited to year-end efforts and the assistance with the purchase order module. So at that time of discussion we were focused on the timeline to get the 24-25 financials. We are currently undergoing audit for that fiscal year.
Amendment number two seeks to expand that scope of service to include assistance with current year 25-26. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With a successful candidate we hope to be fully staffed by the end of May. However, we need the accounting support right now so that we can begin the work for the year-end process. For this current year, I've listed in the report other timelines and projects that we are also undertaking.
Working with different timelines and projects and with the current vacancies, we're asking that the scope of services are expanded to include support for this fiscal year. There is no budget request in this amendment number two. With the current budget, there's about $60,000 remaining on the contract. I am available for questions. I'll try to keep it short, but just to- Well, you said
4:45 – 4:5117 turns
that clearly in the fiscal impact. You're just talking about a scope of services, not a budget.
And it should be said that if we were to go out for an RFP by the time we went out, we got the responses, and we put somebody in, again, it wouldn't be the help that we need to close this fiscal year.
I've also understood that the increase in the salary has yielded many applicants, so that's exciting news.
Yes, we're hopeful for a successful candidate.
I have one comment card. Any questions?
I do have a question. We're being asked to increase the amount to exceed $167,000. What is it now?
No, we're not asking you to increase the amount. On January 13th, that's when you took that
action. If I may, the motion on January 13th was to approve that increase to $167,000, but in the motion, Council directed that the scope of the amount that would be funded by that increase Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We
just didn't feel comfortable, you know, coming back to you, we don't want you to see on the warrant register assistance with fiscal year whatever when you said no we only want to provide it for the prior fiscal year. We don't want to do something that you didn't give us permission to do.
Any questions?
Yeah. Yeah. One question. So with the clarency and transparency, it was it's been several months when I guess after the audit, when we asked to see a timeline on when we could expect things to be done. And to my recollection, we haven't seen that yet.
So what we stated in this in this report and what we've said, I think in some of our financial updates, we expect to be fully staffed basically this fiscal year and we expect to be caught up in the next fiscal year. But if we don't finish the books for the fiscal year that we're in, that is going to jeopardize us being completely caught up in the next fiscal year.
So the finance department's goal is to have low reliance on consultants by fiscal year 27-28.
Right, so what we expect to do, thanks to you increasing the staff for the accountant, we've had a great response. We're going to be testing very soon. We hope to get a successful candidate. With background check and all the processes we go through, it's likely the end of May they'll be on board. So they'll be able to jump in basically and start really with the next fiscal year, but they won't be much help for this fiscal year. Because by the end of May, we really should be pretty far along.
That's the hope.
Thank you. Anything else? I have one public comment. Clay Creasy, please. Thank you.
I'm sure you're even more tired of seeing me than I am of being here, but last round for tonight. Number one, good, happy to hear about the accountant work. Toot my horn again. I am the one who brought that salary deficiency to the attention of the committee. And I suspect that's not the only salary deficiency in the city staff ranks overall. So when you do your study here coming up shortly of compensation overall, you need to pay attention closely. Because we want above average employees, and you can't hire above average people by paying below average wages.
So, anyhow, with regard to this Ide Bailey request, I am absolutely the first person to endorse improving the financial control and systems and so on in Ojai, because I think we all know there is plenty of room to improve. The thing that I am confused about is that this request is to enhance the scope to include year-end close efforts for fiscal year 25-26. That is pretty much bread-and-butter accounting stuff.
And I don't know why you wouldn't use M. V. Chang people to do that. They are qualified accountants who just happen to cost about half the cost of I. Bailey. Now, if you have to be I. Bailey, if M. V. Chang says, I got nobody, then it's I. Bailey is better than nobody. But I would definitely, you know, I would be surprised if that was the case, because M. V. Chang has a lot of people that are pretty, you know, they cover the waterfront. So I would definitely first see if M. V. Chang can do it, because they're $50 to $85 per hour, as you said a couple meetings ago, versus $150 or whatever for I. Bailey.
I do agree it's kind of late to go out to bid, but we should not forget the fact that we have a couple recent experiences where bidding helped a lot. And you can bid accounting services. I've done it before. You guys have done it in the past with the audit firms. So don't lose track that that's doable here. One just slight sidebar with regard to the time with which the Thank you, Mr. Casey.
4:51 – 4:5616 turns
Mr. Abbott, you want to talk about the account team with I. Bailey? Mr.
Abbott. Just very quickly, suggestion, you guys are an entity, you might even consider just hiring through account temps. They deal with very, very high level, usually top 10% people. Just met you. Council Member
Abbott. Okay, thank you. Do you have anything to add?
No, but if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer.
So
sweet.
I would propose that we increase the scope of services per the recommendation.
I don't disagree, but I'm wondering why we wouldn't want to go for the half, for the, I mean, why we would be paying somebody who's obviously, why would we pay the overqualified price as opposed to, you know, hiring the accountant? I don't understand
why. I'm assuming that Ms. Joe is part of that decision and I was trusting her, but do you have something, do you disagree with that or?
So, part of the reason also, I think, to consider is the time, the transitional time. So, for example, if a new consultant or new professional expertise from Missy Chang or another firm would have to review and kind of be accustomed to our chart of accounts, our systems, the process, the way we do accounting. It's a little bit, you know, different. Thank you very much. Thank you.
I think that gives us the benefit of resources and timing. They're very familiar with our accounting, and so it was mentioned in the report, the city prepared its first act with the assistance of Ike Bailey. Ike Bailey was very instrumental in a lot of the more complex entries, especially related to the Gatsby entries. Thank you. I would like to make a comment about the standards that we have to abide by, which are specific to governmental accounting, so in that aspect, I think timing is very valuable, and again, we don't want to fall behind on our timeline, because if we have someone new come on board, they have to learn to process the system. I think that would be a main Thank you. And again, the cost for expertise is the value you get.
Not to say that MV Chang is not in that capacity, but they do with our current Professionals at MV Chang, they do more of a day-to-day assistance as opposed to more analytical analysis entries and assistance.
I just have one quick question for you, Miss. So since Brenda stepped up as finance director, and I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, that you went to consultant. So are you still, what, how many hours, how much help are you to the financial team while we're waiting for people to step up and fill empty positions?
So, am I on? Okay. So, Council Member Mang, I am currently serving the City and assisting primarily with the Crowell Report and the findings that we had in helping with those internal controls. And at the same time, I am also assisting Brenda because we are very limited in staffing while we have the accountant out and another member of the team is out on medical leave.
And I am very limited by the state. This is a state rules. I can only work for 900 hours for the city for the fiscal year. And I'm quickly approaching that for the year ending June 30. So I'm I guess to sum up and answer your questions, I'm assisting her some with
the day-to-day. Just until June, and then hoping by June that we have those two positions filled, and then hopefully we'll be on the right path to...
Right, so at that point, the accounting manager comes back, and then we have, hopefully, an accountant hired.
And then I... Thank you.
So I made my motion. Looking for a second. One second. Thank you. Okay. All right. Roll call, please.
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion. Looking for a second. One second. Thank you. Okay. All right. Roll call,
Show transcript
4:56 – 4:576 turns
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you,
ladies. All right.
Okay. Thank you, Council. Very fast, very fast. Right before we're done, there's one future agenda item that I want you to know about, which is with just the very briefest research, I believe that we can move to at-large voting this November reasonably. So I'd like to bring that up as a close agenda item that I think will be a huge service to the community. Looking for a second there.
I'll second it for sure.
Thank you. Anything else? Wonderful. Thanks everyone. I know that was a lot of work. Thanks everybody.
