Ojai council approves entitlements for Habitat tiny‑home project, orders appraisal and legal review

The Ojai City Council at a special meeting on April 15 approved land entitlements for a proposed Habitat for Humanity tiny‑home project, directed staff to obtain an appraisal of the property and asked the city attorney to review community land trust models and practices in California before deciding on any conveyance.

Lucas Seibert, the city's community development director, summarized the options the council had requested at an earlier meeting: a ground lease that would keep title with Ojai, or a conveyance paired with a disposition and development agreement that would record long‑term affordability restrictions. "Either path will be subject to California's Surplus Land Act," Seibert said, urging the council to weigh enforcement and financing implications for homeowners.

The substitute motion approved by council directed the city attorney to review other community land trusts implemented in California, asked that the entitlements set forth in the resolution in the agenda packet be approved, and authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the parcel. The motion passed on a 3‑2 roll call: Mayor Pro Tem Meng, Council member Lang and Council member Whitman voted yes; Council member Ruhl and Mayor Gilman voted no.

Council debate centered on two competing priorities: moving the Habitat project forward quickly under the builder's model, and exploring a community land trust (CLT) approach that advocates say preserves affordability in perpetuity. A council member advocating for a CLT read from a National League of Cities guide and asked the council to allow attorneys time to examine whether the municipal role in such a trust could be adapted to Ojai. "What I'm asking for is time to work with our attorneys so that they understand this model," the council member said.

Representatives of Habitat for Humanity told the council that a decision on disposition affects financing and the sequence of work. "Every day we don't have this information is a day lost," the Habitat representative said, describing how funding, family‑selection and on‑site sweat‑equity scheduling are tied to a clear path forward. Habitat also described typical resale restrictions and stewardship practices; the organization said its standard agreements run 20 years but noted other jurisdictions have used different terms for tiny‑home pilots.

Council members and staff discussed practical issues tied to each approach: a conveyance with recorded CC&Rs and a disposition and development agreement can run with the land and provide enforceable affordability terms, while a city‑retained ground lease may complicate financing, create landlord‑type responsibilities and raise maintenance and liability questions. Staff noted the property may qualify for an exemption under the Surplus Land Act, which would require a council determination and a notice to the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Because council members were split on whether to delay a final land decision while attorneys and staff explored CLT feasibility, the approved substitute motion advances the entitlements now while ordering an appraisal and a targeted legal review to return to the council at a future meeting. The council identified the next realistic date to return with findings as the regular meeting in May.

What happens next: staff will request the appraisal and the city attorney's office will report back with findings on community land trust options and implementation considerations; the council did not transfer title at the meeting and may take further action once that additional information is provided.