Sierra Madre planning commission denies entitlements for 123 South Baldwin development

The Sierra Madre City Planning Commission voted 4-0 on June 5 to deny a resolution that would have conditionally approved multiple entitlements for a proposed five-unit development at 123 South Baldwin Avenue.

Staff described the project as a plan to preserve the Twycross House, a designated historic landmark on the site, while developing the two vacant flanking parcels with four new detached single‑family condominium units. "The Twycross House will be preserved in place," said Josh Wolf, senior planner for the City of Sierra Madre, during the staff presentation. The entitlements before the commission included variance 24‑01, conditional use permit 24‑03, design review permit 24‑05 and a certificate of appropriateness 24‑04; the commission was also asked to recommend approval of tentative parcel map 84796 to the City Council.

Why it matters: The project raised questions about how Sierra Madre's subdivision code treats structures built before the adoption of uniform building codes and whether the proposal would improperly erode the landmark's context. Staff told commissioners that a 1999 subdivision prohibition prevents converting the Twycross House to a condominium unit, which led the applicant to propose reconfiguring lot lines so the house would remain on its own parcel while the new units would occupy the vacated lots. Commissioners concluded they could not make required variance findings given that prohibition.

Staff presentation and conditions

Wolf told commissioners the development would demolish an existing detached garage, construct four detached condominium units and provide a new attached garage for the Twycross House. He said the project met many development standards but required variances for minimum lot dimensions, minimum lot area and the number of dwelling units per lot. Wolf also noted staff recommended several special conditions if a variance were granted, including a minimum building separation requirement and a reduction of maximum permitted density on the project site. He said environmental review had been scoped as a Class 31 categorical exemption under CEQA, but that finding would be subject to the commission's determination.

Applicant and expert testimony

Jim Moran, the owner's representative, and architect Gaurav Manassian presented the project's design intent and context, stressing compatibility with neighboring multifamily development and pedestrian scale. "We think we've come up with a really nice option," Moran said, describing an approach that preserves the landmark while adding courtyard‑style units. Carrie Chastine, a senior architectural historian with Chronicle Heritage, testified that the detached garage proposed for demolition is not "a character defining feature" and said demolition would not constitute a substantial adverse change under CEQA. "Because it's not a character defining feature, it's not a historical resource as defined under CEQA," she said.

Public comment and concerns

Several neighbors spoke in opposition, citing visual impacts, precedent and code compliance. Christine Veil, who lives on South Baldwin Avenue, warned that "granting this variance could set a precedent for future developments" and said the project would change the street's visual harmony. Cynthia Runyon, whose property abuts the site, wrote that the plan "fundamentally changed [the Twycross House's] visual and historical context" and urged denial. Jeremy Stacy argued the project "surrounding a landmark with modern buildings... absolutely changes its context and prominence." Other commenters offered both support and criticism; one resident noted surrounding properties already include multifamily structures and called the design thoughtful.

Commission deliberation and action

Commissioners repeatedly returned to the condominium conversion prohibition in the subdivision code, which staff traced to a 1999 adoption related to Title 16. Chair Denison said the existence of that prohibition made it difficult to justify the variances the applicant requested. "I can't make the findings to get a variance around the condominium conversion part of it," Denison said during deliberations.

After discussion, a motion to deny resolution PC 25‑05 — the package of entitlements for 123 South Baldwin Avenue — was moved and seconded (mover/second not specified in the record). The commission voted 4‑0 to deny the resolution; commissioners present were Chair Denison, Vice Chair Simcock, Commissioner Brennan and Commissioner Yu. Because the entitlements were denied, staff said the related recommendation on the tentative parcel map (PC 25‑06) was rendered moot.

What the decision means and next steps

The commission's denial prevents the proposed lot reconfiguration and the condominium conversion pathway the applicant sought. Staff noted the subdivision approval and any tentative parcel map would also require City Council action if pursued in another form. The planning manager also described an alternative the commission said it would be willing to consider: a single consolidated lot with five units held in common ownership (rental or ownership structure different than condominiums) that would reduce the number of variances required; the applicant said the owner prefers to build units for sale rather than operate rental housing.

The item drew extensive public comment and a detailed staff report; commissioners thanked staff for the presentation but concluded they could not make the required findings to grant the variances as proposed. The commission adjourned the hearing and moved to the next agenda item.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to deny Resolution PC 25‑05 (variance 24‑01; CUP 24‑03; design review 24‑05; certificate of appropriateness 24‑04): Passed, 4‑0 (Denison, Simcock, Brennan, Yu).