West Covina planning commission continues hearing on proposed 48-unit townhome project after neighbors raise parking, trees and access concerns

The West Covina Planning Commission on May 13 continued the public hearing on a Brandywine Homes proposal to consolidate three parcels and build 48 townhome condominium units on about 5.3 acres near Holt Avenue and Oak Knoll Drive.

Senior planner Fabiola Wong told the commission the project would require a General Plan amendment and East Hills master plan revision to change the site’s land-use designation to medium residential, approval of Precise Plan No. 13-7, Tentative Tract Map No. 72579 and a tree removal permit. Wong said the project would demolish two existing single-family homes, preserve an existing stream bed that runs through the site and would remove trees within the development footprint: “Removal of this 37 trees,” she said, and staff noted up to 44 trees could potentially be removed depending on construction impacts to tree drip lines.

Why it matters: the project proposes substantial changes to a 5.3-acre site and requires discretionary approvals from the city and separate approvals from state agencies for work affecting the stream bed. Neighbors said the proposal, as shown, could reduce privacy and the quality of adjoining yards, increase parking pressure on Oak Knoll and remove many mature trees that contribute to the area’s character.

Staff and developer presentation

Wong outlined mitigation and conditions in the initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration circulated for public comment. She said the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife is a responsible agency because of the site’s riparian area and that the applicant must obtain any required streambed-alteration agreement. The staff report included a tree survey that identified about 101 trees on site, with 36 oak trees and one sycamore inside the proposed building footprint and another seven oaks potentially impacted within drip lines; staff said the tree removal permit as proposed would be for 37 trees and that replacement plantings are required at a 2:1 ratio or payment of an in-lieu fee if on-site space is insufficient.

Wong also described site and design features: a gated community with primary vehicle access from Holt Avenue, three community open-space areas including a central picnic area, a bridge over the stream to access units near Oak Knoll, and a 42-inch wrought-iron fence at the front elevation and a 6-foot metal fence around the stream as requested by state wildlife staff. She said 16 of the units will have driveway aprons that allow two uncovered spaces in addition to two-car garages; the project also provides 48 common surface parking stalls, which staff and the applicant said would result in an average of about 3.7 parking spaces per unit.

Brett Whitehead of Brandywine Homes described community outreach dating to March 2013 and said the project will plant up to 88 replacement oak trees in 24-inch box sizes. Whitehead said the project would “maximize the parking while still balancing that with the preservation of the open space” and that the developer would work with neighbors on specific adjustments, including the contested pedestrian gate on Oak Knoll.

Neighbor concerns and developer response

Several nearby residents testified. Eric Donnelly, who said his property backs up to the project, told the commission he originally expected to support the plan but opposed it pending changes: he objected to building heights and proximity to Oak Knoll, the number and size of trees proposed for removal, and the adequacy of the proposed tree mitigation. Donnelly urged larger replacement trees and changes to the site layout to reduce impacts on backyard privacy.

Other neighbors raised similar concerns about privacy, parking overflow and the pedestrian gate on Oak Knoll that would provide a non-vehicular shortcut. Joe Maxey, a longtime resident, supported the project in concept but said the pedestrian gate “could be an issue for parking” and asked that the applicant consider removing it. Ben Sanchez, a neighbor, spoke in favor of the project and said redevelopment could reduce vandalism behind his property.

Whitehead said the developer was prepared to meet with neighbors and explore moving some units or otherwise adjusting the plan. He told commissioners the team had agreed during a pre-meeting discussion with neighbors to reexamine the layout and asked whether the commission would consider forwarding the project to council with the understanding that the developer would continue work with neighbors, or alternatively to continue the hearing for a short period to allow revisions.

Commission discussion and direction

Commissioners repeatedly cited three recurring concerns: the number and size of replacement trees, the proposed pedestrian gate and potential spillover parking on Oak Knoll. Commissioner Holtz said, “you need to put in bigger trees,” and suggested either eliminating the Oak Knoll pedestrian gate or imposing restricted parking on the street adjacent to the gate. Several commissioners said they preferred a short continuance rather than deciding the matter immediately so the applicant could deliver revisions. Commissioners also noted the project would require a streambed-alteration agreement with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and that CEQA mitigation measures are part of the staff recommendation.

Formal action

The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to continue the public hearing to a date certain, May 27, to allow the applicant and interested neighbors to work on adjustments and for staff to prepare any revised materials for the commission’s review. The motion passed with a recorded “aye” vote from all five commissioners present.

What remains to be decided

At the continued hearing commissioners are likely to weigh any revised site plan, changes to the pedestrian access, the size and location of replacement trees and any refinements to parking and circulation. The commission will also consider staff’s recommendation and CEQA findings; as of the May 13 hearing staff recommended adopting the mitigated negative declaration and approving the required plan and map resolutions for transmittal to the City Council, but the commission did not act on those recommendations before voting to continue.

Implementation notes and outstanding approvals

If the project proceeds, it will require: (1) city approvals (General Plan amendment, East Hills master plan revision, precise plan and tract map) and (2) any state/federal permits for streambed work. The developer said prices would range from the high $400,000s to about $530,000 per unit and described a phased construction schedule; the developer also said the homeowners association would maintain internal streets and open-space landscaping.

The commission set the continued hearing for May 27 to return with proposed revisions and any additional staff analysis.