Escondido Planning Commission recommends 94‑unit Storm Properties townhomes to council with staff design review

The Escondido Planning Commission on May 12 recommended that the City Council approve a 94‑unit townhome condominium project at 510–520 West Valley Parkway, with a condition that staff complete a design review of architectural details before building permits are issued.

Alex Rangel, associate planner for the City of Escondido, told the commission the project (planning case numbers PL250096–PL250099) proposes 94 for‑sale townhome units on 3.51 acres at the northwest corner of West Valley Parkway and Center City Parkway, replacing existing retail and self‑storage buildings. Rangel said the design would create 204 parking spaces (two‑car garages per unit plus 16 guest spaces), provide about 28,200 square feet of open space and 98 trees, and that the site is identified in the city’s Suitable Sites Inventory. Staff also cited a Class 15332 (infill) categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act and recommended adoption of Resolution 2026‑04 to send a recommendation of approval to council.

During discussion several commissioners praised the project as a ‘missing middle’ for‑sale product but pressed the applicant for stronger street‑facing design on the Center City frontage. Vice Chair Stevie said he was a “soft no” before the discussion because the proposal “feels kind of boring” and urged more variety in facade color and “three‑dimensional treatments” such as recessed windows, decorative tile accents or Juliet‑style balconies to improve the street character. Commissioner Wyler and others raised similar concerns about articulation and visibility at higher speeds on Center City Parkway.

Applicant representatives — Jason Simmons of Consultants Collaborative and Jay Aluwalia, president of Storm Properties — told the commission they had incorporated many features and were willing to work with staff on further refinements. Aluwalia said, “Our hope is this is, kinda like the missing middle project that everybody’s kinda looking for,” and the team repeatedly offered to coordinate quick design adjustments while preserving the project’s financing and a planned June 10 council hearing.

Commissioners also questioned parking management. Commissioner Wyler asked how the project would prevent owners from occupying guest stalls; applicant representatives said parking rules would be enforced through CC&Rs and the homeowners association during initial occupancy and that ownership product typically self‑regulates after sales are complete.

On density issues staff explained the project will transfer 257 unused theoretical units into the downtown density‑credit pool and that the city must account for those units when demonstrating compliance with the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) and the statewide “no net loss” framework discussed in the hearing. Staff said the Downtown Specific Plan permits unit transfers to a density bank and that municipal code contains a 70% minimum density standard with exceptions available via the planned development permit process when the city can still meet RHNA obligations.

After extended discussion of alternatives (tabling for redesign, approval with specific conditions, or recommending approval and delegating detailed facade review to staff), Commissioner Wyler moved to approve Resolution 2026‑04 recommending council approval “as designed” with an exception that architectural treatments be subject to staff design review prior to building‑permit issuance. The motion was seconded and passed 5–0. The clerk read the motion as approval of Resolution 2026‑04 with subsequent staff design review before building‑permit issuance; the commission recorded the vote in favor by Chair Speer, Vice Chair Stevie, Commissioner Wyler, Commissioner McCarroll and Commissioner Gustafson.

The applicant said staff review would allow the project to remain on track for a June 10 council date while the applicant and staff work to refine colors, articulation and limited overhangs on Center City‑facing facades. If staff judges a proposed change to be problematic, the director of development services may bring the item back to the commission for additional input, staff advised.

Following the vote staff introduced Garrett Smith as the city’s new city planner. The commission adjourned at the end of the meeting.

Next steps: the Planning Commission’s recommendation will be included in the City Council staff report; final project approval and any binding design conditions will be set by the City Council at its hearing (date projected June 10, 2026).