The Duarte City Council on Sept. 23 certified the final environmental impact report (EIR) and approved a package of land-use actions to allow the Crestfield Townhomes project — a 169-unit rental townhome development paired with a comprehensive upgrade to Otis Gordon Park — after a public hearing that ran more than three hours.

The project, which the Duarte Unified School District advanced through a ground-lease procurement process, won council approval on a 4–1 vote with Council member Calderon recused. Council member Truong, Council member Finley, Mayor Pro Tem Martin Del Campo and Mayor Garcia voted to approve; Council member Lewis voted no, citing insufficient information.

Why it matters: The district and developer said the lease revenue and family-sized units aim to help reverse falling school enrollment and produce ongoing funding for district priorities. Opponents said the sale or lease of school property risks loss of public recreation land, could spur displacement and raised questions about compliance with surplus-land rules and CEQA analysis.

What the council approved and what the project includes
- The council certified the final EIR and approved several associated land-use actions: a general-plan amendment changing part of the site from public facilities to high-density residential and part to open space; a tentative parcel map to split the property; site-plan and design-review approval; a planned-development permit; and introduction (first reading) of a zone-change ordinance to allow R-4 (high-density residential) and open-space zoning for the park portion. The council also directed follow-up conditions described below.
- The residential portion would occupy about 7 acres and include 169 for-rent townhome units organized in 25 residential buildings plus one recreation building. Units would be only 3- and 4-bedroom floorplans (132 three‑bedroom, 37 four‑bedroom) ranging from about 1,358 to 1,475 square feet (average ~1,425 sq. ft.).
- The project includes roughly 6.3 acres of upgraded park (the project team described it as an increase from about 5.9 acres), new sports fields and lighting, a restroom, a meandering walking trail, accessible parking (the park lot would have 57 spaces), playground equipment specified to be inclusive, and roughly 431 new trees across the site per the developer’s landscape plan (applicant: 305 trees for the residential portion, 126 for the park as presented).
- Affordable housing: the developer agreed to 28 units (16%) restricted to “moderate” income households as defined in the staff report (about 80–120% of county median income). The developer also represented that a local preference would apply to those units for Duarte residents or people employed in the city.

EIR findings, key mitigations and planning staff summary
City staff and the project EIR consultant, Rincon Consultants, told the council the EIR evaluated 13 CEQA topic areas in detail and found no unavoidable, significant impacts after mitigation. The council packet and consultants identified mitigation requirements for construction and operations that will be enforced through the city’s mitigation‑monitoring plan. Key measures cited in staff and consultant presentations include:
- Construction equipment requirements (use of Tier 4 engines to reduce emissions), dust control and compliance with state hauling/transport rules.
- Preconstruction biological surveys and avoidance measures for nesting birds and a requirement to plant at least two replacement trees for each tree removed.
- Cultural‑resource protections including a worker‑education program, archaeological monitoring, and a stop‑work procedure and protocol for inadvertent discoveries.
- A vibration control requirement for work within 26 feet of existing residences along the northern site boundary (a “static roller” restriction was included).
- A Native American monitoring requirement for ground‑disturbing work following tribal consultation.
- Transportation: the EIR used California’s vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) metric and the project was found to be below the city’s VMT threshold; the EIR therefore determined transportation impacts are less than significant under CEQA. The consultant also included a traditional level‑of‑service analysis for council information.

City staff and the project team also noted several “above‑and‑beyond” elements the developer offered as part of the design‑review/plan‑development package: public art at the Crestfield/Central corner and on the recreation building (final designs to return to the design review board or an ad hoc), gated pedestrian access points from the development to Otis Gordon Park, and a required parking‑management plan to be administered by the property owner to limit on‑site parking overflow.

Positions presented at the hearing
- Duarte Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Nadia Hillman framed the project as a district strategy to generate long‑term revenue and attract family‑oriented households. “I do respectfully urge you to approve the Crestfield project in light of its broad and lasting benefits for the future residents, for our city, for our schools,” Hillman told council.
- The district’s outside counsel, Serene Abrahamian, outlined the district’s procurement (request‑for‑proposal and asset‑management advisory committee) and said the ground‑lease structure was chosen so the district would retain ownership and on‑site recreational use.
- Developer George Voigt said the project’s three‑ and four‑bedroom townhomes would fill a local family‑housing gap, that affordable units would include a local live‑work preference, and that the park and public‑art commitments were included in the proposal.
- Rincon project manager Suzanne Huerta summarized the EIR process, the public‑review timeline and the mitigation and monitoring plan.
- Traffic consultant Giancarlo Gandini said a construction traffic control plan and standard transportation permits will be required during demolition and construction and that the VMT analysis found transportation impacts below the city’s threshold.

Public comment and objections
More than 50 people spoke during the hearing and the clerk provided a written packet of public comments that included 537 physical support cards submitted by supporters the project team said were Duarte residents. Speakers were mixed. Supporters, including local business and chamber representatives, said the plan brings family‑oriented housing, park upgrades and ongoing revenue. Opponents and several residents raised legal and procedural objections and concerns about traffic and neighborhood impacts:
- Manuel Maldonado, a resident, urged the council to deny certification and approval, asserting the district improperly declared the site “exempt surplus land” and alleging the project would reduce the baseball field and could run afoul of the statute he called the “Naylor Act” and the Surplus Land Act. (Those assertions were contested by district counsel during the hearing.)
- Outreach representatives for the project said the developer collected hundreds of support cards and that roughly 83% of contacted stakeholders backed the project; the outreach coordinator, Dylan Areola, told council the project team had knocked on thousands of doors and submitted 537 support cards from Duarte residents.

Council deliberations, recusal and vote
Council member Calderon formally recused himself from the item before staff presentation because of a conflict related to his residence adjacent to the site; he left the dais and the chambers during the hearing on the item. Several council members pressed staff and the applicant on construction staging, the routing of heavy trucks, night‑time work, and whether the city could require or enforce on‑street parking limits for adjacent single‑family neighborhoods. Director Craig Hensley told council that construction traffic and staging would be handled via standard transportation permits and that the city typically requires haul‑route and traffic management plans as part of permit approval.

At the close of deliberations Council member Finley moved to certify the EIR and approve the related land‑use actions; the motion passed after a roll call where Council member Truong, Council member Finley, Mayor Pro Tem Martin Del Campo and Mayor Garcia voted yes, Council member Lewis voted no, and Council member Calderon was recorded as recused/abstaining. The council also introduced the zone‑change ordinance for a first reading (further ordinance readings and final adoption will follow the city’s ordinance calendar).

Conditions and next steps
The council’s approvals were conditioned on the mitigation‑monitoring and reporting program identified in the final EIR and standard conditions the city uses for construction staging and traffic control. Staff and the applicant agreed to work with the city on a parking‑management plan, and the city will require final public‑art designs to return to either the design review board or an ad hoc that the council or staff designates. The project still requires building permits, construction traffic plans, and the city’s final sign‑off on landscape/lighting plans and the park improvement designs before ground‑disturbing work may start.

What the decision does not do
City staff emphasized during the hearing that the council’s action did not reopen or order the district to reopen the school; the action before council was limited to the land‑use entitlement, zoning, maps and the environmental review of those changes. Staff also cautioned that if the district pursued state options (a statute discussed at the hearing as AB 2295), the city could have less authority over future entitlements on that school property, a point the planning director characterized as a real possibility if the district sought that alternate state pathway.

Looking ahead
Opponents said they may continue to press legal and procedural questions about surplus‑land obligations and CEQA; the city will enforce the agreed mitigations and permit conditions during construction. The council’s approvals permit the developer to move toward final design, permitting and construction once the developer satisfies the city’s conditions, mitigation monitoring and the district’s lease execution requirements.