Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ojai council narrows supportive‑housing plan after $1M pledge, seeks donor flexibility
Summary
After a hours‑long debate and public outcry, the Ojai City Council voted to proceed with a reduced, budget‑constrained version of a 30‑unit permanent supportive housing project funded by a $12.7M state grant and to ask the project sponsor and donor about flexibility for five units earmarked for transitional‑age youth. Council also asked staff to study a smaller modular option on a second city parcel.
The Ojai City Council on April 14 moved to advance the city’s long‑planned permanent supportive housing project at the lower public‑works yard after a prolonged public hearing and days of cost and site analysis.
Council members were presented two options by staff and the project developer Dignity Moves: a value‑engineered scheme that fits the city’s $9.5 million allocation, and a more comfortable $10.5 million version made feasible by a newly announced, restricted $1 million private pledge. Jeff Gatis, who introduced the donor relationship for Dignity Moves, told the council the foundation’s gift is “designated specifically for the [public‑works] site” and for five of the 30 units to serve transition‑age youth.
The donation drove the sharpest debate. Supporters, including the donor’s spokesman and multiple public commenters, said the pledge strengthens the project’s viability and would increase the city’s chance of securing future grants. Architect Dylan Johnson described two schemes to council — one that trims finishes and landscaping to stay within $9.5 million, and another that restores community amenities and raises contingency to 10 percent with the donated funds. “This donation makes a tremendous difference in the viability of the project,” Johnson told the council.
Opponents and some council members pressed the city to reconsider the public‑works site because of access, steep walk‑ups and a pending environmental cleanup. Several residents and disability advocates warned the proposed ADA ramp and site connections would not, in their view, provide reliable daily access for elderly or mobility‑impaired residents.
Council members also debated alternatives — including modular construction and splitting some beds to a secondary city parcel — and asked staff about the schedule and risk if the city switched sites midprocess. Staff warned bids are only valid through May 16 and that re‑siting would likely add many months and require rebidding and additional environmental and design work.
After extended deliberation the council approved a motion commonly described in the meeting as “option two”: proceed with the project while pursuing two follow‑up tasks. First, staff will ask Dignity Moves and the foundation whether the $1 million pledge can be used with more flexibility than the donor’s initial restriction (the donor had stipulated five units for transitional‑age youth at the public‑works site). Second, the city directed staff to conduct a feasibility study for adding small modular or “tiny” units at a second city property (the 503 Ventura/McCrae parcel) as a potential complement to the main development.
Council members cited an urgency to move people out of encampments and avoid losing state ERF funds, and many members framed the vote as a way to balance fiscal constraints with immediate housing needs. Several public commenters had urged the council to approve the project immediately to avoid losing the state grant and to reduce the human cost of delayed housing.
What’s next: staff will reach out to the state housing agency (HCD) and the donor to clarify how the restricted pledge can be used and will return to council with the feasibility study for the secondary parcel. The project’s winning bid remains valid only through mid‑May, and staff stressed that further changes to site or design could require rebidding and a months‑long delay.
Votes and motion: the council approved the motion to move forward with option two and the two follow‑up studies by roll call. Council members recorded mixed votes during roll call as they balanced concerns about accessibility, cost and timing; staff described the decision as intended to preserve grant funding while buying time to clarify donor and design questions.
Why it matters: the project is funded principally by a $12.7 million state Encampment Resolution Fund award intended to move people out of encampments and into permanent supportive housing. The city has considered multiple sites over two years and the council’s decision keeps the current site choice in play while testing whether donor conditions can be adjusted and whether modest additional units could be added on a nearby city parcel.
