Ojai planning commission recommends Mallory Way affordable housing project to council, conditions tied to property-line dispute

The Ojai Planning Commission voted 3-0 on July 2 to recommend City Council approval of a 58-unit affordable rental development at 412 Mallory Way, but added a condition that a property-line dispute with adjacent homeowners be satisfactorily resolved before council review.

The project, presented by Community Development Director Lucas Seibert, is part of a December settlement agreement and would preserve 25 existing Mallory Way bungalow units while adding new units on the 3.58-acre site. Seibert told the commission, “This project is a part of a settlement agreement,” and outlined key elements including a mix of deed‑restricted and market‑rate units, retention of a north–south trail, and a density cap tied to that agreement.

Why it matters: the proposal would add small, lower-cost rentals in the city while protecting historic bungalows and a pedestrian trail — but it raises local concerns about parking, storm drainage, habitat review and an unresolved parcel boundary adjacent to the Menlo residence that could affect the project footprint.

What the commission approved and why - Recommendation: The commission voted to recommend that council approve the project and the associated resolution and conditions of approval, with the express condition that the Menlo property‑line dispute be resolved to the city’s satisfaction prior to council consideration. The motion passed on a roll call of Graham (aye), Murphy (aye), and Chair John Trent (yes). - Additional recommendation: The commission asked that City Council consider requiring a traffic study and evaluate stop‑sign or other traffic controls at nearby intersections (including Mallory Way and Aliso) as part of the council review.

Project details presented to the commission - Unit count and affordability: 58 total units; 10 deed‑restricted units (five designated very low income and five moderate income) that trigger density bonus provisions; the remaining units are market rate. Seibert said unit footprints are about 500–600 square feet. - Existing units preserved: The proposal includes preservation of 25 Mallory Way bungalow units (21 buildings) identified in the settlement agreement. - Parking and access: Developers increased on‑site parking from the version shown in May; Seibert reported the design was revised from 63 spaces to roughly 71–73 spaces in response to comments. Plans show three ADA spaces and multiple internal access points, including an emergency access and a pedestrian connection to Summer Street. - Public land dedication and trail: The site includes an approximately 830‑foot segment of a 50–52‑foot paper street/trail corridor; the developer is asking to use roughly 385 feet of that corridor and would formalize and sign the existing trail connection. - Two‑story element: The original single‑story approach now includes a two‑story “stick‑built” building at the eastern edge that contains seven units; the remainder of the site is predominantly single story to preserve the motor court character. - Building and safety requirements: Project landscaping and building plans will follow the new fire hardening rules (no combustible material within five feet of structures, additional spacing and fire‑rated attachments). Landscape architect Bill Mallett confirmed minimum structure separation (10 feet) and that landscape materials will comply with the code.

Outstanding environmental and technical items - Fish and Wildlife review: Staff and the applicant met on site with California Department of Fish and Wildlife staff, who indicated an application is required for impacts to the on‑site watercourse under the referenced “602 requirement” in the government code; the scope of necessary submittals and specific mitigation requirements remained unclear at the hearing. When asked whether CDFW would require setbacks or reduce unit count, a project representative said that they did not have a definitive answer yet and were awaiting the formal application and Fish and Wildlife’s determinations. - Drainage and flooding: Commissioners and the applicant discussed an existing lined culvert in poor condition that engineers recommend replacing; the site floods in significant rain events, and adjacent drainage improvements were described as part of the design.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns - Neighbor property‑line dispute: Frank and Lynn Menlo, whose property adjoins the paper street, told the commission they have a survey showing the fence encroaches differently than city or developer surveys indicate; Frank Menlo said the proposed new units “are literally gonna be on our fence,” and asked the commission to avoid approving anything that would force the loss of private property. The commission added the property‑line resolution condition in response. - Parking and public land concern: Resident Steve Quillese urged the commission to secure on‑site parking to prevent long‑term street parking and said he did not recall public notice about granting public land to the developer. Quillese said he was “not aware that the city was giving over public land to a developer.” - Environmental and habitat concerns: Commenter Anita Graham pressed staff to acknowledge the on‑site channel as a watercourse and to require biological assessment, bird‑nesting protections and attention to native trees. She said, “burying a creek in a sewer pipe underground is not an improvement.” - Historic preservation input: Historic Preservation Commission members and commenters supported keeping the motor‑court character and preserving the bungalows; some, including Brian Akins and other commenters, supported the changes that preserve the historic units.

Next steps and conditions - Council review: The planning commission’s recommendation moves the application to City Council for final action. The commission’s recommendation includes the condition that the property‑line dispute with the Menlos be satisfactorily resolved prior to Council approval, and that council consider a traffic study that could lead to stop signage or other traffic controls. - Outstanding approvals: The project remains subject to required agency reviews (including the Fish and Wildlife application) and final engineering and building permit reviews. Staff said right‑of‑way improvements on Mallory Way, Eucalyptus and Summer streets will be determined through the city’s engineering review during subsequent stages.

Budget, scale and clarifying details - Lot size: 3.58 acres. - Unit size: approximately 500–600 square feet. - Parking: revised from 63 spaces (May submittal) to approximately 71–73 spaces in revised plans; 3 ADA spaces shown. - Deed‑restricted units: 10 total (5 very low, 5 moderate); the existing bungalows include deed restrictions for several units (the record shows 3 existing units moderate deed restricted and 4 existing very low deed restricted; new units add additional deed‑restricted units as shown on the affordability matrix).

Speakers quoted in this report were present in the meeting record and include Lucas Seibert (Community Development Director), Jeff (applicant/engineer), Chair John Trent, Vice Chair Murphy, Commissioner Graham, Frank Menlo (resident), Steve Quillese (resident/commenter), Anita Graham (commenter), Bill Mallett (landscape architect), and Brian Akins (Historic Preservation Commission member). Direct quotations are taken verbatim from the meeting transcript.

The commission’s recommendation does not finalize permits; it forwards the matter to City Council with the noted condition and recommendations.

Ending: The commission closed public comment after a wide ranging discussion and voted to send the recommendation to council. City staff said they will continue to work with the Menlos on the parcel‑boundary questions and will submit the Fish and Wildlife application materials once complete.