San Dimas council approves 164‑unit for‑sale project after heated debate over gate and affordable units

The San Dimas City Council on Oct. 14 approved a 164‑unit for‑sale condominium development with 17 units set for moderate‑income households, approving the resolution 4–1 after a lengthy public hearing and debate over a gated entrance and the distribution of affordable units.

Community Development Director Louis Turico and Planning Manager Marco Espinosa outlined the proposal as a 164‑unit project on housing element Site 13A with a mix of two‑ and three‑story townhomes and one five‑story building in the alternative plan. Espinosa told council the project includes 17 units that would be sold to moderate‑income households and said staff revised the resolution to include the appropriate streamlining and CEQA exemptions. He also described an associated tree removal and replacement plan: "There's a total of 116 trees on the site that will be removed; 80 have been determined to be mature and 36 non‑mature," and the applicant proposes replacement 24‑inch box trees meeting the downtown specific plan requirements.

Developer Matt Wakin said his team designed the project to align with the downtown specific plan and stressed its for‑sale focus. "We came back in, we designed the 164 units that you see before you ... It's gonna bring 164 families to San Dimas, and homeownership's something that's really important today," he said.

Speakers during public comment were split. Planning Commissioner and resident Doren Barnes praised the project's design and said he supported it but opposed a gated entrance, arguing a gate "sends a message of keep out." Former council member John Ebiner, who submitted a written letter that was entered into the record, urged the council not to shift lower‑income units to other sites and recommended the city seek a higher share of low‑income units, asserting that the current proposal "push[es] all lower income affordable units to other sites."

Council spent significant time on procedural and policy questions. Staff explained the housing‑element reallocation process, giving Site 4 as an example: under the proposed changes Site 4 would move from 22 low‑income units to 32 low‑income units while keeping total unit counts stable. The council voted 4–0 (Council member Vienna temporarily stepped out for the Sites 4 & 5 vote because of a conflict) to approve those specific site redistributions so Vienna could return for consideration of the remainder of the project.

Much of the debate centered on whether the project should include a gated entrance. Supporters of the gate cited security and illegal‑dumping concerns and explained how pedestrian access would be provided. Opponents said gates can reduce civic engagement and create a visual barrier in the downtown area. Traffic analysis submitted by the project's consultant showed roughly 600 daily trips, with 20 inbound in the AM peak hour and 55 inbound in the PM peak.

Council member McConnell cast the lone dissenting vote on the final project approval; the motion passed 4–1. The council approved the project as proposed, including the gate, and asked staff to bring any future gate‑removal requests back to council for review. The resolution and associated conditions are part of the administrative record and the project remains subject to the normal building‑permit and ministerial processes required under state law.

What happens next: Per state rules and the project’s approvals, the applicant will proceed to the permitting stages and required technical plan checks; staff will manage any subsequent administrative reviews noted in the resolution.