Planning commission backs revised 48‑unit townhome project in East Hills; neighbors secure removal of pedestrian gate

The West Covina Planning Commission on May 27 recommended approval of a revised application to build 48 two‑story townhome units on three contiguous parcels in the East Hills area and certified a mitigated negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Senior Planner Fabiola Wong told commissioners the 5.35‑acre project includes a general plan amendment, East Hills master plan review, a zone change to allow a specific plan/precise plan, a tentative parcel map for condominium subdivision, and a tree removal permit covering the proposed removal of 35 to 44 oak trees. “Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval to the City Council of general plan amendment number 13‑4, East Hills master plan review number 13, zone change number 13‑04, and certifying the mitigated negative declaration,” Wong said.

The application was continued from a May 13 meeting to allow the applicant to meet neighbors. The applicant presented a revised layout that keeps the project at 48 total units while reconfiguring unit groupings along Oak Knoll Drive to reduce the number of units with direct driveways and to shift two units from the street edge into the project interior. As a result, some small open‑space picnic areas were reduced in size while the overall open‑space acreage for the site increased slightly, staff said.

The applicant agreed to remove a pedestrian gate from the Oak Knoll frontage after neighborhood meetings. Staff had recommended retaining the pedestrian gate to improve neighborhood connectivity and create safer walking routes to nearby schools; staff noted the gate would support a “safe path of travel” to Mesa Elementary School. Neighbors and the applicant told the commission they preferred removing the gate to avoid potential overflow parking and nonresident access to the development. Commissioner Holt, among others, voiced support for the neighbors’ request: “If the residents don’t want that gate… I’m in favor of not having the gate,” he said.

The project includes a tree‑mitigation plan required by the city’s tree ordinance. The applicant said it will replace removed trees at a 2:1 ratio using 24‑inch‑box trees; the applicant and staff explained site constraints limit planting of larger specimens in many locations. The developer also agreed to plant larger specimens (48‑inch boxes) in a limited landscape area between two triplex buildings along Oak Knoll and to install hedges expected to reach 8–10 feet at planting and to grow as high as about 20 feet, providing additional screening for adjacent backyards. Neighbors pointed to a swimming pool approximately 30 feet from the property line and asked for screening; the applicant also proposed a six‑foot block wall along the shared property line.

Residents who spoke at the hearing praised the applicant’s outreach and the revisions. Eric Donnelly, who hosted a neighbor meeting with the applicant, told the commission, “They listened. They did everything we asked,” and urged commissioners to adopt a condition that would prevent future pedestrian access from the development to Oak Knoll. Other nearby residents sought removal of one parking stall immediately adjacent to a backyard; the applicant agreed to remove that single stall and instead plant one of the replacement trees in that spot.

Staff and the applicant described parking as exceeding city standards on the site; the applicant noted the project would remain “over‑parked” relative to minimum requirements and indicated the project would offer garages plus shared parking to meet demand. Wong said the revised plans did not create new environmental impacts beyond those already analyzed and therefore did not require recirculation of the environmental document.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt the resolutions forwarding the project and the environmental finding to the City Council. The commission adopted five related resolutions: certification of the mitigated negative declaration, the general plan amendment/East Hills master plan revision, the zone change, approval of the precise plan, and approval of the tentative parcel map with tree‑removal permit. Commissioners did not identify individual roll‑call votes in the hearing transcript; the record notes a unanimous vote in favor.

The City Council will consider the general plan amendment and zone change at a subsequent hearing; the applicant’s precise plan and tentative parcel map were approved by the commission and will proceed according to the city’s noticing and appeal process.

Why it matters: The decision moves a 48‑unit infill project closer to construction while illustrating a common tension in suburban infill between pedestrian connectivity and neighbor concerns about parking and privacy. The commission’s action also formalizes tree‑removal mitigation that will substantially change the on‑site tree canopy and requires the developer to plant replacement trees on site.