Ojai commission recommends landmarking Mallory Way, backs Mills Act tax contract amid debate over new units

The Historic Preservation Commission voted March 13 to recommend that the City Council designate the former Valley Outpost Lodge at 412 Mallory Way as a City of Ojai landmark and to recommend approval of a Mills Act contract with the property owner. The commission also debated and offered substantive comments to the Planning Commission about the project’s site design.

Staff presented a proposed project analysis prepared by Page & Turnbull and described the property’s history: a motor lodge built between 1947 and 1949 with a courtyard, pool and related landscape features and (corrected during the meeting) 19 historic cottages on the parcel. Staff said the current submittal proposes to retain the existing cottages, rehabilitate them over time and add 33 new residential units in 31 separate new buildings for a total of up to 58 units, as required by a 2023 settlement agreement between the city and the property owner.

The consultant’s report concluded the site is eligible for local landmark designation under several criteria and found the proposed project could be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards if specific recommendations are followed. Staff and the consultant advised design measures such as distinguishing new stone wall patterns from existing stone; repairing rather than replacing original exterior features; using gentle paint‑removal methods; and recommending darker roof colors and subdued cladding colors for the new prefabricated units. The report also recommended retention or relocation of site features such as the wishing well and repair of existing stone edging and landscape walls.

Applicant Jeff Becker of Ojai Bungalows described efforts to meet the settlement terms, keep the new construction single‑story, preserve and rehabilitate the cottages, and to upgrade infrastructure (sewer, electrical, plumbing). Hannah of Page & Turnbull told the commission she was satisfied the revised proposal retains the cottages in their current locations and strikes a balance between added units and preservation of character‑defining features.

Public commenters and several commissioners urged stronger protections for the site’s open central courtyard and the spatial relationships among buildings. Anita Creme and other speakers cited prior conditions of approval and CEQA language that require repair rather than replacement of historic features and stressed the importance of protecting paving types, landscape features and certain interior elements described in the historic analysis. Multiple commenters said the new buildings planned for the courtyard and immediately west of the historic cottages would materially change the property’s motor‑court character: ‘‘If someone came in here they would not experience it in the same way,’’ a resident said, urging that the plan preserve the commons area and the “motor‑court feeling.”

Commission debate was lengthy and split. One earlier motion, urging the Planning Commission to relocate nine proposed new units from the central courtyard area to better preserve the site’s historic character, failed on a roll call vote (motion failed). Later the commission voted to forward a recommendation of landmark designation for the site as proposed and also voted to recommend the Mills Act contract to City Council. The commission additionally agreed to forward planning comments asking the Planning Commission to consider adjustments to preserve the courtyard and key visual relationships where feasible.

Staff noted that the Mills Act contract is a property tax agreement that can reduce the parcel’s property tax liability while obligating the owner to rehabilitate and maintain historic resources consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; staff and one commissioner said the tax‑savings are typically tracked and that county examiners review documented rehabilitation work under Mills Act contracts.

The commission directed staff to forward the commission’s landmark recommendation, the Mills Act recommendation and the commission’s comments on site layout to the Planning Commission and City Council. Several commissioners said they would revisit the matter if the Planning Commission required substantive design changes that addressed the commission’s concerns.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to recommend landmark designation to City Council: passed on roll call (commission recorded affirmative votes and the motion was carried). (Refer to the meeting transcript for the roll‑call text.) - Motion to recommend execution of a Mills Act contract for the property: passed on roll call, 5–2.

What the commission did not decide tonight: the commission did not unilaterally change the project’s proposed unit count or require relocation of the new buildings; planning and design review remain the purview of the Planning Commission. Several commissioners and public commenters asked the Planning Commission to consider design adjustments to avoid filling the central courtyard, to limit visual obstruction of historic cottages, and to consider alternative placements or heights for new units.

Background and context: The property owner and the city executed a settlement agreement in 2023 that allows up to 58 units on the parcel and required submittal of an application for landmark designation and a Mills Act request. Page & Turnbull’s analysis (in the commission packet) evaluated the site under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and California environmental rules including CEQA Guidelines section 15331 (maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of historic resources). Staff corrected factual items in the staff report during the presentation (for example, the count of contributing cottages was corrected from 21 to 19).

Next steps: The commission’s recommendations and comments will be transmitted to the City Council and Planning Commission for their respective hearings on landmark designation, the Mills Act contract and design review. Planning Commission review will assess the site plan, any required permits and compliance with local codes.

Sources: Staff presentation and project analysis by Page & Turnbull; applicant statements from Jeff Becker; public comments and commissioner remarks recorded on the March 13, 2025 commission transcript.