Ojai planners continue review of ‘Cabin Village’ supportive‑housing project amid soil, access and fire‑hardening concerns

The Ojai Planning Commission continued its review Feb. 19 of the “Cabin Village,” a proposed permanent supportive housing project on a 1.74‑acre parcel currently used as the city Public Works yard, with discussion focused on a lot‑line adjustment, design details and community concerns about soil contamination, access and wildfire hardening.

Staff and the project design team told the commission the proposal is for a 30‑unit, single‑story building arranged around a central courtyard with shared dining and service spaces; the city is the applicant and the developer is Dignity Moves. Lucas Seibert, the city’s community development director, said the lot‑line adjustment is a survey cleanup that increases square footage by more than 10% on two smaller lots and therefore requires Planning Commission review before City Council consideration. “My name is Lucas Seibert. I’m the community development director here for the city of Ojai,” Seibert said during the presentation.

Staff said the site is zoned PL (Public/Quasi‑Public) with a General Plan designation of Public, and that permanent supportive housing does not appear verbatim in the city use chart. Seibert said staff is justifying the proposal as a government‑services use because the project will be funded through state grants and the city—rather than a private nonprofit—is the applicant and landowner. Seibert also outlined a set of CEQA exemptions staff believes apply, including the Class 32 infill exemption and provisions for qualified affordable housing and recent statutory provisions that affect local approval of projects to house people experiencing homelessness.

Caitlin Bush, the civil engineer with Jensen Design, described grading, utilities and access: “This driveway is also, fire department accessible and is compliant with fire code,” she said, adding the plan routes stormwater to match existing patterns and that the project is “going full electric.” Architect Dylan Johnson described the program: “30 units arranged around a courtyard,” with 28 single units of about 80 square feet and two double units, all on one level and designed for accessibility. Landscape architect Kathy Nolan said the team will preserve mature on‑site trees where feasible, add drought‑tolerant native plantings and design a courtyard with dining, raised planters and a permeable paving system that helps manage runoff.

What staff called on‑table items for the commission were land use, General Plan and zoning consistency, the design review permit and the lot‑line adjustment. What staff said is off‑table for the commission at this stage are project financials and some operational details, which the team said will be discussed at a separate meeting with service providers: Seibert said Dignity Moves and county partners will attend a public session on Monday, Feb. 24, to address operations and services.

Public comment and commissioner questions focused on four recurring concerns:

- Soil contamination and environmental review: Several residents and commenters cited the site’s past use as a maintenance and storage yard and pressed for a focused environmental study. Seibert said the city had commissioned a Phase 1 review after the November hearing; that report did not recommend an immediate Phase 2 but indicated a soils report for geotechnical stability was needed and completed. Seibert told the commission the city has now contracted for a Phase 2 environmental investigation to test for contaminants on the 1.74‑acre project site and said that the commission could add a condition requiring the Phase 2 and that any recommended remediation would follow the Phase 2 findings.

- Fire hardening and wildfire resilience: Multiple speakers urged stronger fire hardening in building materials and landscape design. Public commenter Renee Roth said, “We must do more now. This is really important,” urging the commission to place home‑hardening and fuel‑reduction on future agendas and to coordinate with the Ojai Fire Safe Council and Ventura County Fire. Commissioners asked for specific construction strategies (non‑combustible soffits, slab‑on‑grade assemblies, spark arrestors) and a condition requiring clear fire‑hardening measures.

- Access, ADA routing and evacuation: The proposed ADA ramp from Montgomery Street requires multiple switchbacks to gain elevation to the building pad; several commenters and commissioners called for studying alternate pedestrian access, including a Signal Street connection north of the site to provide a shorter route into town. Caitlin and Dylan said the ramp is designed to avoid mature tree roots and that an elevated, pier‑supported walkway is being considered to minimize root impacts. Commissioners also asked staff and the design team to develop a site evacuation plan and to study lighting and safe pedestrian routes between the site and downtown.

- Unit size, livability and amenities: Commenters asked about storage, bicycle protection and charging, daylight and ventilation in bathroom spaces, acoustic separation between units and common indoor meeting space. Dylan said budget and site constraints drove unit size, but the team agreed to study added covered bike storage with charging, additional lockable storage or a larger garden shed on the north side of the parking area and options for more daylight/ventilation (skylights or small windows) while balancing cost and construction complexity. Dylan said the plan includes individual heating/cooling units for each studio and a shared community kitchen and dining area intended as the indoor common space.

Some neighbors opposed the site on land‑use grounds. Attorney Christina Cropp, representing the Persimmon Hill Homeowners Association, argued that permanent supportive housing is effectively a multifamily residential use and not explicitly permitted in PL zoning, and urged denial on General Plan and zoning consistency grounds. Other residents raised concerns about traffic, emergency response times, and the project’s proximity to single‑family neighborhoods.

Commission discussion focused on clarifying findings staff will send to City Council and on a list of conditions and follow‑up items commissioners asked staff to pursue before the City Council hearing. Commissioners reached consensus on a set of staff recommendations to include in the record and to pass along to council, including two items commissioners specifically asked be memorialized as conditions:

- A Phase 2 environmental investigation of soils for contaminants on the 1.74‑acre project site and implementation of any remediation steps the Phase 2 recommends. - Fire‑hardening requirements “to the extent reasonable and feasible,” including roof/soffit details and fuel‑modification requirements in the landscape plan.

Commissioners also asked staff to include in the report and to pursue with the applicant or the developer where feasible:

- Covered bike storage with lockable lockers and EV/e‑bike charging capability. - Additional on‑site lockable storage (options: larger garden/tool shed or unit‑adjacent unconditioned lockers) if budget and site constraints allow. - Options to increase unit daylight/ventilation (ventilating skylights or small operable/frosted bathroom windows) and an acoustic partition rating target for party walls to reduce noise transmission. - Site lighting and a review of pedestrian access alternatives including a study of a Signal Street connection and safe, lit routes for ADA users. - A written evacuation plan for the site tied to local emergency response agencies. - Documentation of tree protection measures and a final arborist report to minimize grading impacts to mature oaks.

Next steps: staff will append the Phase 2 requirement and the other commissioner conditions to the design‑review packet and forward the project to City Council for final action. Seibert told the commission that the operations and services discussion is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 24, and that City Council will hear related location and policy matters in a subsequent council agenda (staff referenced an additional council session later in March). No formal commission vote on the project was taken Feb. 19; the commission provided comments and recommended conditions the staff will include in materials for City Council review.

Why it matters: the Cabin Village is tied to state funding intended to house people experiencing homelessness and would move residents currently living in tent encampments into permanent supportive housing. Residents, service providers and neighbors say the site plan affects not only design and construction but emergency safety, neighborhood compatibility and long‑term operations. Public comments and the Phase 2 soil investigation request indicate potential legal and environmental issues that could affect the project schedule.

The project record, staff report (Attachment C) and the design materials will be updated with commissioner conditions. Staff and the applicant are expected to return with operational detail at a Feb. 24 public meeting; City Council will make the final zoning/lot‑line and permit decisions at an upcoming council hearing where the Phase 2 results, fire‑hardening commitments and the applicant’s responses to community concerns will be part of the official record.