I urge you to accept the recommendation of the City to deny the request for (yet another) extension of the permits for the condo project at 312 West Aliso Street.

I just about fell off my chair when I picked up the Ojai Valley News on September 22 and read Kimberly Rivers' reporting:

“According to Ojai City Manager James Vega ... the City has information ‘that the current tenants at the Cottages qualify as very low, low, or moderate-income.’”

(Thank you, James Vega!)

I understand Ojai has an excellent ordinance "requiring replacement housing to be provided, at specified income affordability levels, if existing multi-family residential housing occupied by persons with very-low, low, or moderate incomes is subject to conversion or demolition." And since the Developer is unwilling to provide any affordable units at this property and has withdrawn entirely from the four-parcel deal (which also did not fulfill the City's mission of protecting its affordable housing stock, by the way), I cannot see any reason Council should extend this permit.

Unfortunately, with building costs being what they are, there is no market-based solution to affordable housing. I moved from Ojai to Brooklyn just after Mayor Bloomberg's 2005 rezoning of Williamsburg's industrial areas. The ensuing building boom did not lower the rents on older housing stock; the argument always used to sell such plans to communities. Instead, prices rose across the board in Williamsburg, East Williamsburg, Bushwick, etc.

I was, in fact, a real estate agent. Suddenly, the tenement-style one-bedrooms I had been leasing for $1400 were $1800, then $2000, then $2500. Mind you; the new units were $3450 for a comparable size.

I once rented a lousy 550 SF, ground-floor two-bedroom in Bed Stuy with a kitchen faucet running — not leaking — running, at full gush, for $2750. The applicants asked if the landlord would fix it. I said, "Probably not," and they wrote me a check for my 10% broker's fee. The City finally passed laws (or tightened existing ones) requiring/enforcing 20% of a project to be set aside for income-restricted units. I have friends who have won these rental and condo/coop lotteries. They're set.

Here, I have friends living at Mallory Way; in studios that never see repairs. One has been there for years and pays $1100, well, now $1210, since the recent 10% rent increase Becker just handed to all tenants. The last listing I saw available there, just a couple of weeks ago, was $1900 for a junior one-bedroom. Of course, it was the cheapest unit available in the Ojai Valley, cheaper than the weird, furnished ADU that was listed with some Fair Housing violation like, “Best for a single person.”

My point is: I like the very excellent ordinance that requires a developer to replace affordable housing. Hold them to it!

Jules Weissman

Meiners Oaks (Ojai's Bushwick)

During a recent Council meeting on the Development Agreement between the Becker Group and the City of Ojai, there was an outpouring of interest shown by the public for preserving the agreement’s two documented historic properties—the Cottages Among the Flowers and the former Valley Outpost Lodge on Mallory Way. This interest was expressed in public comments—both oral and written—on social media, and in several letters in the local newspaper. It is clear that the general public would like to see these properties preserved as City landmarks.

The City of Ojai owes its voters the opportunity to speak to this option before approving any project that will significantly impact, if not destroy, their historic significance. Offering meager and inadequate mitigations, like photographing the buildings before demolition, will still rob Ojai of two important and popular historic resources.

If you review the CEQA analysis completed by the city on these two properties in 2007, it is clear a “Mitigated Negative Declaration” was granted incorrectly for both. A Mitigated Negative Declaration can only be granted if the mitigations proposed will reduce the project impacts below the level of significance. That is not true for either of these two projects. The historic reports concluded that adopting the recommended mitigations would still result in a significant impact on the historic significance of the buildings. Just ask yourselves this question: after the projects are completed, will the properties still be eligible for the California Register of Historic Places or the National Register? The answer is clearly no. But don’t take my word for it…it’s in the historic reports.

I ask that you nominate these properties as historic landmarks, and, after studying the properties fully, make a recommendation to the Council based on the facts. Please don’t let an error by the city six years ago cause Ojai to lose two treasured historic properties.

Thank you!

I am writing to encourage you to vote against the development plan on today's agenda that would result in the destruction of the Cottages among the Flowers and Mallory Way communities.

I live just across the street from the Cottages. They are a beautiful and unique part of our communities landscape and history. The Cottages were built to house teachers and artists within our beautiful town. I am a teacher myself. I am lucky enough to have a partner who can help supplement my income and with whom I can split rent with, but if I was on my own, I as a teacher would no longer be able to afford to live in this community that I love.

To remove 33 units that support low-income residents and to replace it with just 5 designated for low-income households is a travesty. Not to mention that baffling statement that low income somehow equals someone making "$78,000" a year. Low income should be designated much lower and the number of units reserved for this should be equal to the 33 that are going to be replaced. The remaining difference from the 65 units planned then should be designated for the moderate income households. Do not let Ojai become just the playground of the rich. Do not let our town become gentrified so that long time residents are pushed out. Keep our town affordable so that families can grow and prosper here, that elderly residents will not have to worry about losing their homes, that artists and teachers and service workers in our community have a place where they can live comfortably. Housing is a human right - please vote to support human life and dignity.

Furthermore, I know that Ojai needs more housing and I desperately hope that I myself will one day not be priced out, but we cannot lose the character of the Cottages. When I see the cottages, I wish more housing was like this. Beautiful small homes nestled amongst trees and gardens. In our town, we love our outdoor spaces, but we do live in a place that is limited on land, so much of that outdoor space must be shared. Big apartment complexes or larger scale units would diminish the beauty and uniqueness of our town, making it look like any other place in southern California. I know that more housing must be built at some point, but I hope it can be done in a way that preserves the ethos and aesthetic of the Cottages and that, in fact, more developments throughout the valley can be made in such a manner - small units living together in shared gardens of land.

In conclusion, please vote against this proposed development and work with the community to find a solution. Stand for economic and housing justice and do not contribute to the vilification of the poor. Support our low-income residents and do not condone any new developments until an equal number of low-income housing can be secured. Do not let out town because the playground of the rich, but support your constituents who already live and work here. Stand for Ojai's artists, teachers, and service workers and vote against this proposition.

With respect,

On behalf of the citizens of Ojai, we submit this public comment letter on the above-entitled agenda item for the July 12, 2022 Council Meeting.

The City Council is proposing to Adopt an Ordinance for a Proposed Development Agreement for the Becker Development Group located at four separate sites including 312 West Aliso Street, 107 North Ventura Street, 304 South Montgomery Street, and 412 Mallory Way, including density increases for two sites (107 North Ventura Street and 304 South Montgomery Street), and a zone change from Public/Quasi Public (P) to Village Mixed-Use (VMU) for one site (107 North Ventura Street) (Case No. DA 21-037) (hereinafter referred to as “the Proposed Project.”)

The City Council is considering exempting the Proposed Project from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

For the reasons explained below, and the evidence submitted with this letter in support of the legal arguments made herein, the City Council will abuse its discretion if it approves the Proposed Project and exempts it from full CEQA environmental review.

We request that the City Council vote NO on this Proposed Project and direct staff to prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project. In the alternative, we request that the City prepare a subsequent EIR for Mallory Way sub-project and an EIR for the Cottages Among the Flowers 2 sub-project, and conduct an initial CEQA study on the remaining two sub-projects to determine the proper level of environmental review that must take place, whether it be a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CANNOT BE APPROVED BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LAWS ARE NOT SATISFIED

Per Gov. Code § 65867.5 “Approval of the development agreement by the city of Ojai is a legislative act and shall not be approved unless the city finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.”

Per Ojai Municipal Code (“OMC”) § 10.2.2803, approval of a development agreement requires the city council to enact an enabling ordinance “containing findings, and the facts supporting them, that the development agreement (1) Would be in the best interests of the City; (2) Is consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and these Zoning Regulations; and (3) Would promote the public convenience, health, interest, safety, and welfare of the City.”

The development agreement is not in the best interest of the city because it provides zero very low-income housing units, results in a loss of truly affordable housing units (i.e., from 33 to 25 across the four sites) and as will be seen below is inconsistent with the conservation, circulation and housing elements of the City’s general plan.

Conservation Element

The conservation element requires that the city of Ojai ensure that adequate supplies of water be available to all city residents. Here, there is evidence that 100% of Ventura county residents are affected by the drought and that the city of Ojai is in a period and area of extreme drought. (Exhibit A [National Integrated Drought Information System Report for Ventura County].) The Ojai Basin Ground Water Management Agency has indicated that groundwater supply is rapidly depleted during periods of drought. (Exhibit B [OBGWMA Webpage].) Meanwhile the water supply is being strained by demand. (Exhibit C [Ventura River Watershed Management Plan 2015 – Supply and Demand Section]; Exhibit D [Casitas Municipal Water District 2021 Lake Casitas Water Supply and Demand Study.]; Exhibit E [Graph of Lake Casitas Storage]; Exhibit F [Casitas Water Supply Assessment 2021].) In fact, the city of Ojai entered into a Stage 3 Drought in April 2016. (Exhibit G [Casitas Municipal Water District Webpage].) The impacts of lack of precipitation, temperature increase and aridification will only intensify the consequences of the drought on the water supply. (Exhibit H [Washington Post Article re: Aridification]; Exhibit I [Guardian Article]; Exhibit J [NOAA Data/Webpages].) The data discussed in the Guardian article can be accessed https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/mapping.

As the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has explained:

“When discussing drought, one must have an understanding of aridity and the difference between the two. Aridity is defined, in meteorology and climatology, as "the degree to which a climate lacks effective, life-promoting moisture" (Glossary of Meteorology, American Meteorological Society). Drought is "a period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently long enough to cause a serious hydrological imbalance". Aridity is measured by comparing long-term average water supply (precipitation) to long-term average water demand (evapotranspiration). If demand is greater than supply, on average, then the climate is arid. Drought refers to the moisture balance that happens on a month-to-month (or more frequent) basis. If the water supply is less than water demand for a given month, then that month is abnormally dry; if there is a serious hydrological impact, then a drought is occurring that month. Aridity is permanent, while drought is temporary.” https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/drought-aridity.

Ojai is experiencing not just drought, but aridification, which has critical implications for the future of this City’s water supply. This issue has been wholly ignored in any City documentation regarding Proposed Project.

The conservation element also requires the city to protect oak trees and minimize loss of resource value of locally significant stands of oak and sycamore trees. The Ojai Community Forest Plan details the history and importance of trees and oak trees in particular in the city. (Exhibit K [Ojai Community Forest Plan].) The plan describes the benefits of canopy coverage, (Ibid), as does an article published on the city’s own website. (Exhibit L [Article by the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources].) Yet, the staff report admits that trees, including oak trees, would be destroyed by the Proposed Project. (e.g., 2-90, 2-97, 2-135, 2-282, 2-304.) For example, a tree removal permit was approved for the removal of 10 trees on the Cottage Among the Flowers site. (2-117.) A tree removal permit will be required for the Montgomery site. (2-82, 2-281.) Trees will also be removed at the Mallory site. (2-133, 2-135.) These are all presumably mature trees with large canopy due to their age.

The city relies on tree replacement as mitigation measures for the trees lost at the various sites. (E.g., 2-98; 2-124 to 2-125. ) The mitigation measures lack any emphasis on the possibility of preserving the trees to be removed by building around them, as called for by the Conservation Element and the evidence relating to tree preservation presented with this comment letter. (Exhibit K [Ojai Community Forest Plan]; Exhibit L [Article by the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources].) Tree replacement will be an ineffective mitigation measure without a guarantee that mature trees will be replaced with mature trees, instead of saplings. The difference in aesthetic, nesting/foraging and cooling ability between a mature tree and a sapling have not been analyzed, nor has the interim impacts on these resources been analyzed during the years or even decades it could take a sapling to reach full maturity. Moreover, the tree loss mitigation measures indicate that trees may be relocated off-site, thus having an aesthetic impact on the site or even worse, it is implied that there may not be enough stock to provide for replacement trees. (2-98.) There is no analysis in the staff report or the attachments 4 thereto on these crucial points and it will be abuse of discretion for the city to approve the development agreement without this analysis first performed on the Proposed Project.

The Conservation Element also requires the city to identify and protect biological resources within the city and its area of interest. Here, the city admits that birds and bats will be impacted by the of loss habitat (i.e., trees, including but not limited to oak trees) as a result of the Proposed Project. (2-134, 2-303-04 (Mallory site); 2-282 (Montgomery).)

There is no analysis of the potential loss of birds and bats that may result from the replacement of a mature tree with a sapling. The decision-makers need to know the implications on the bat and bird population of Ojai if mature trees are cut down and replaced with saplings that could take decades to reach the appropriate size to accommodate a bat or bird nest.

Moreover, the biological mitigation measures are either non-existent, ineffective and/or outdated. For example, the city long ago certified an MND for the Cottage Among the Flowers site, but the MND does not provide for any mitigation measures for the protection of bats and birds. (2-107 to 2-129.) That is troubling given the presence of bats and birds on other sites in the Proposed Project area. (2-134, 2-303-04 (Mallory site); 2-282 (Montgomery).) The conditions of approval for the Mallory Way site were adopted in 2012, and circumstances have changed since then, bats and birds have been seen nesting in trees on that site in the intervening 10 years. Moreover, the Mallory Way site conditions indicate that construction/grading could occur during nesting/breading season and contemplate fencing off trees with birds present. (2-134). This is insufficient.

The proposed conditions of approval as to the Montgomery site, include pushing a tree to provide a “warning” to any bats present (2-170) and allows construction even when young bats may be present. (2-170-171.) The measures also include a construction buffer between nests and work, yet even the city admits “Disturbance could make the bats abandon roosting sites and could result in loss of young and/or adults.” (2-282.) The above measures do not adequately protect bats and birds in the city of Ojai. Thus, the loss of bird and bat habitat is inconsistent with the conservation element of the general plan.

Thus, a finding that the project is consistent with the general plan is not supported.

[THIS GOES ON TO TOUCH ON TRAFFIC AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES]

Respectfully Submitted, Sabrina Venskus, Esq.