VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 4
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Since the submittal of the project applications, the Development Plan Review Board (DPRB) has been eliminated. The DPRB was the body that was responsible for the review of the projects architectural, site layout, landscape and hardscape. This review has now been reassigned to the Planning Commission; this will be the first project under this new process.
It’s important to note that the Applicant has also submitted an alternative development project application for this site under Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, which does not require discretionary review by the Planning Commission or City Council. Per State law, this alternate development project would only be subject to a building permit as long as it complies with the existing zoning and development standards, which it does. The project consists of 129 townhome units and 140 apartment units for a total unit count of 269 units, with a density of 30 units per acre. This alternate development includes 3-story townhomes with a total height of 36 feet, and a 5-story building with a total height of 60 feet for the 140 apartment units.
However, at this time, the Applicant would prefer to move forward the 164-condominium project discussed in this staff report. Should their current request not be approved, the Applicant would move forward with the alternative project of 269 units which would be a combination of for-sale and rental units.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned, the proposed development will provide 164 townhome units, 17 of which will be affordable to Moderate income households. Various applications, discussed further in this report, are required to be approved in order for the development to move forward. In addition, an Affordable Housing Agreement, entered into by the City and the Applicant, will be required to be approved to restrict the affordable units.
Site Layout/Infrastructure Improvements
The 164-unit condominium project will be accessed off the south side of E. Bonita Avenue via a two-way private driveway that will lead to a six-foot high wrought iron main entry gate for the proposed development and will also provide access to the USDA Forest Service site, which is adjacent to the proposed development (Figure 2). An access gate providing access to the USDA Forest Site will be installed under a separate permit and is not part of this request. The vehicular access gate for the proposed development has been designed to allow for residents and visitor traffic flow with a turn-around for exiting, the gate will also have a pedestrian access gate. The gate is set back on the property over 300 feet, which will allow for plenty of queueing of vehicles (Figures 2 & 3). The Applicant has already obtained approval from the Los Angeles County Fire Department for the proposed site access and will be required to install several private fire hydrants within the project site. Other than curb, gutter and sidewalk no other public improvements will be required. Residents will be able to make a left or right hand turn on to Bonita Avenue when leaving the site. On the southeast end of the project will be a fenced off, emergency only exist to E. Hera Street. Vehicles and pedestrians will not be able to access this gate other than for emergency purposes, as mentioned.
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 5
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Figure 2 – Proposed project site plan
Beyond the entry gate, access to the units will be provided via a 26-foot wide primary private road that will run the entire length of the development. Each of the unit’s garages will be accessed via 26-foot wide alleys accessed from the primary road. (Figure 4). On average there are 10 to 12 units off each alley way, double loaded. Each unit will have a two-car garage, and there are 41 visitor parking spaces located throughout the site along the primary road.
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 6
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Figure 3 – Enterance Driveway and gate.
Figure 4 – Main driveway leading to alleys/garages
Grading and Fencing
The site currently slopes from the northeast to the southwest. As part of the development, the site will have to be graded. The overall slope and drainage direction of the site will not change; however, the proposed grading will ensure that the development will drain towards the center of the alleyways into underground collection pipes that will divert water down the center of the primary road, south to the underground Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater storage system. The site’s grading will require 27,677 cubic yards of cut and 8,777 cubic yards of fill. Once completed, a total of 13,671 cubic yards of soil will be exported from the site. The regrading of the lots will require double retaining walls with a total height of 16 feet along the north and portion of the east property lines of the project. The 16-foot high retaining walls will be facing the project site and not the existing commercial and single-family residential developments; therefore, only six feet of the wall will be visible from the adjacent parcels. In order to obtain the required site drainage, the elevation of the overall site will be lowered. In doing so, it will lower the building pads, which will help reduce the overall height perspective of the project from the adjacent properties, lowering concerns regarding visual intrusion (Attachment 3).
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 7
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
The perimeter of the project will be fenced off with a six-foot-high, off-white colored, sand finished stucco wall with a decorative cap. Each of the ground level courtyard patios for each of the units will also be fenced off with a 42-inch-high, off-white colored, sand finished, stucco block wall with decorative cap and a metal or wood gate. The six-foot high main entry vehicular and pedestrian will be painted black to complement the off-white-colored stucco. The gates will be flanked by stucco pillars that will also house decorative light fixtures.
Condo Design
Given the scale of the proposed development, there will be a mixture of unit types and also a mixture of building cluster types. The Applicant is proposing nine (9) different unit types ranging in size from 1,286 square feet to 2,036 square feet, in two- and three-stories. The two-story units are generally adjacent to the single-family zoned properties east of the subject site, as required by the DTSP. The units will also range from two (2) bedrooms with two (2) and a half baths to five (5) bedrooms with three (3) and a half baths. There will also be seven (7) types of building clusters ranging from three (3) to seven (7) units, each with their own architectural design features, color schemes and layout (Attachment 2). The following is a breakdown of the unit types and building layout types (Figure 5).
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 8
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Figure 5 – Building Layout Types
The project has been designed in a contemporary Spanish style architecture that will include, but not limited to recessed accents, arches, boxed bay windows, metal Juliet railings, canvas window awnings and decorative corbels. All the architectural details that will be incorporated into the development are included in Figures 6 & 7 below.
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 9
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Figure 6 – Spanish Architectural Building Details
Figure 7 – Spanish Architectural Building Details
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 10
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
The contemporary Spanish Architectural style allows for a variety of building layouts that provide for front porches, balconies, arches, and wall fenestrations. The Applicant has been able to design all the building clusters to have their own architectural look with different roof heights, secondand third-story setbacks from the first floor and cantilever wall planes, developing a cohesive and well-designed development (Figure 8 and Attachment 2).
Figure 8 – Front and Rear Elevations of Two Different 5-Plexs Most of the building clusters have been laid out to have the front doors of the units face an interior walkway that leads to each unit’s courtyard. On the other side of the walkway would be another building with its front door facing the walkway, creating the feel of a neighborhood block. The front court yards are approximately 302 sq. ft. in size and allow for residents to place patio furniture and even a BBQ for their own enjoyment.
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 11
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Development Standards
Table 1 below summarizes the various development standards of the DTSP that the Applicant has meet with the proposed development.
Table 1. Development Standards – Gateway Village East
Description Code Standard Provided
1. Maximum
Density
16-25 Units to the acre (Proposed) 17.8 Units to the acre
2. FAR 1.75 0.96
3. Maximum
Stories Above
Grade
3-stoies, 36-feet maximum, pitched
roofs are permitted to extend 8-feet
beyond the maximum permitted.
3-story, 29’-6” plus 7’-7” extension,
2-story, 21’-6”
4. Street
Setback
10 feet min. 200 feet
5. Interior
setback
adjacent to
SF zoning
20 feet
• An additional 12 feet setback
for three-stories
20 feet
• An additional 12 feet setback
for three-stories
6. Interior
setback when
not adjacent to
SF Zoning
Zero feet 7 feet
7. Building
Modulation
Every 100 feet N/A
8. Open Space
Common and
private
150 sq. ft./ unit (combination or
common & private)
• 24,600 sq. ft. req.
49,629 sq. ft. (302 sq. ft./ unit)
Private Open Space
• 60 sq. ft./ unit (6’ min. dim.)
o 9,840 sq. ft. req.
21,116 sq. ft.
Common Open Space
• 1000 sq. ft. min (20’ min. dim.)
28,513 sq. ft.
9. Publicly
Accessible
Open Space
3% of gross floor area, (20’ min.
dim.)
294,148 sq. ft. X 3% = 8,824 sq. ft.
req.
8,984 sq. ft.
10. Parking
• 2 +
bedroom
2 parking spaces/ unit
• 164 x 2 = 328
328 spaces
• 2 garage spaces for every
unit
• Guest 0.25 sp./unit (164/4 = 41 spaces) 41 spaces
• Total
Parking
required
328 + 41= 369 spaces 369 Spaces
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 12
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Tree Removal, Landscaping, Open Space
The Tree Preservation Ordinance, serves to preserve and protect any mature significant trees growing in the City. Trees defined as mature require a permit before any major topping, cutting, or removal is done. A mature tree may only be removed or relocated due to disease, development of the subject property, or health and safety concerns affecting the general public. A mature tree is defined as “any Oak tree measuring 8 inches or more in trunk diameter, and/or any other species of tree that measures 10 inches or more in diameter, and any multi-trunk tree having a total circumference of 38 inches or more, with at least one trunk having a minimum diameter of 4 inches. The diameter must be measured at a point 36 inches above the ground at the base of the tree.” The replacement requirement for the removal of a mature tree is two trees, 15-gallon in size.
The applicant is proposing to remove all the trees from the site due to the required grading, changing in the finished grade of the project site and the conflict with the proposed building and underground infrastructure. There are a total of 116 trees on the site, 80 of the trees have been determined to be mature and another 36 non-mature. All the trees were seedlings that have not had any proper care or pruning. The variety of trees on the site consist of Canary Island Pine, other Pines, Coast Live Oak, Ash, Sycamore, Cedar, Elderberry and Palms (Attachment 4).
The Applicant is proposing to plant a total of 164 trees, 24-ince box in size, meeting the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the DTSP replacement requirements. The replacement trees will be planted throughout the development, consisting of fruitless Olive, Southern Magnolia, California Sycamore, Crape Myrtle, Strawberry Tree, Australian Willow Columbine Plane, and a few other species.
As part of the tree replacement plan, the Applicant is providing for a comprehensive landscape plan of the entire site, which will also include the development of common open space with several amenities and also the publicly accessible space fronting along Bonita Ave. The public accessible open space will measure 8,984 sq. ft. and will provide an open dog play area, dog station, and benches. In the interior of the development there are several common open spaces totaling 28,513 sq. ft in size. The central community space, the largest open space area in the development, will provide passive and active uses, including, but not limited to a BBQ island, picnic tables, benches, tot lot play equipment, and open green space (Figure 9).
Figure 9 – Central Community Open Space
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 13
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Housing Element Amendment
As previously mentioned, the subject site is Site #13 of the City’s Housing Element Sites inventory.
Site#13 is comprised of two parcels with a total lot size of 12.5 acres. One parcel is owned by GSWC with a lot size of 3.31 acres. The second parcel was part of a larger property owned by the USDA Forest Service with a lot size of 9.19 acres (Figure 10). Since adoption of the Housing Element, the Site has been rezoned to DTSP – Gateway Village East to accommodate the residential density identified in the Housing Element. The proposed development consist of two (2) parcels; however, for purposes of the Housing Element amendment, only Site #13 (both portions) will be included in the analysis.
Figure 10 – Housing Site 13 Outlined in red. The project site consists of a portion of USDA Forestry Site sold to the Applicant outlined in red and 464 E. Bonita Ave. also sold separately to the applicant.
Site #13 has a designated density range of 45-55 units per acre, which can accommodate 450 units, per the City’s Housing Element. However, since the development is proposed on a portion of Site #13, which consists of a 9.19-acre site, the development is proposing an 17.8 unit per acre development, for a total of 14 units. Therefore, in order for the proposed development to move forward, an amendment to the Housing Element is required to reduce the density designation for the subject site and to address No Net Loss. Under No Net Loss Law, if a city approves a development proposal that calls for a lower density or a reduction of units in any of the income category allocations, than that set forth in the Housing Element, then the city has 180 days to identify additional sites or reallocate units within existing sites to accommodate the units lost as a result of the reduced density.
As a result of the proposed development, the following amendments to the Housing Element will be required:
1. Creating two sites from Site #13 (Site #13a & Site #13b); 464 E. Bonita Ave
GSWC
Portion
Subject Site
(former
USDA)
Remaining
USDA Site
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 14
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
2. Reducing the designated density of 45-55 units per acre to 16-25 units per acre for a portion of Site #13, which is proposed for development by the Applicant; and
3. Transferring unit capacities across affordability levels to address No Net Loss.
Creating Two Sites from Site #13
Site#13 has always been comprised of two
parcels with a total lot size of 12.5 acres
(see Figure 11). One parcel is owned by
GSWC with a lot size of 3.31 acres. The
second parcel was part of a larger property
owned by the USDA Forest Service with a
lot size of 9.19 acres. Since adoption of the
Housing Element, the USDA Forest
Service sold the portion of their property,
portion of Site #13, to the Applicant. Since
the Applicant would only be utilizing a
portion of Site #13, the site would need to
be split into two (2) sites; Sites 13a & 13b
(Figure 10). As part of the amendment, the
Sites Inventory map will be updated to
reflect the split of Site #13.
In creating a new site (#13b), development
capacity had to be determined. Therefore,
the same methodology described in the
City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was used
to determine the development capacity for
the GSWC site (Site #13b). The following factors were utilized in determining development capacity and are shown in the table below:
• Site Acreage: 3.31 acres
• Site Utilization: 80%
• Affordability: 30% Lower Income / 70% Moderate Income Table 2 - Site #13b Development Capacity
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
GSWC Property
(APN 8390-016-
007)
Development
Capacity
36 83 0 119
As shown in the Table 2 above, the total development capacity for proposed Site #13b is 119 units. Please note that the affordability levels for Site #13b will be transferred to address No Net Figure 11 - Proposed Site #13a & #13b
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 15
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
Loss discussed later in the report. While the number of Lower and Moderate-income units will change, the total development capacity will remain at 119 units.
Density Reduction
Site #13 has a designated density of 45-55 units per acre. The portion of Site #13 that was purchased by the Applicant consists of 9.19 acres and would have a development capacity of 413 – 505 units based on the current density. However, the applicant is proposing a lower density of 16-25 units per acre on a portion of Site #13, now proposed as Site 13a which would result in an appropriate development of 164 new multi-family units, therefore requiring an amendment to the Housing Element. The other new Site #13b is not proposed to be developed at this time is proposed to remain at its original density designation of 45-55 unit to the acre.
Transferring unit capacities across affordability levels With the proposed change in density for the proposed Site #13a, and the fact that no lower income units are included in the project, a No Net Loss situation is created for the lower income category designated for Site #13. As shown in Table 3 below, when the lower income development capacity of the GSWC property is deducted from the total capacity assigned to Site #13 in the Inventory, and after taking into account the proposed 164-unit development project on the remaining portion of Site #13 (proposed Site #13a), the net change of lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income units attributable to Site #13 is negative 99 units, negative 216 units, and positive 145 units, respectively. After applying the buffer of 10 lower-income units, found in the existing Sites Inventory, the proposed 164-unit development project will result in the need for the City to account for an 89-lower-income unit deficit in the Inventory.
Table 3 - Net Deficit in Site Inventory Buffer
Lower Moderate Above Moderate
Current Site #13 Housing
Element Site Capacity 135 315 0
Proposed 164 Unit
Development, Site #13a 0 17 144
GSWC Property
Proposed Development
Capacity, Site #13b
36 83 0
Net Change in Site #13
Capacity due to
Proposed Development
-99 -215 +144
Net Deficit in Buffer -89* N/A** N/A**
*Remaining buffer accounts for existing 10-unit buffer in Sites Inventory. **Existing inventory includes sufficient buffers for Moderate and Above Moderate income categories
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 16
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
A proposed solution to this net deficit is to adjust the buffer by reallocating units across affordability levels. It’s important to note that in reallocating units, the density and total number of designated Housing Element Site Inventory units for each site will not change (See Table 3). To adjust for the net deficit of 89 units in the buffer for the Lower Income category, units from the Moderate and Above Moderate-Income category could be reallocated to the Lower Income category. By reallocating units within existing sites, there is no need to create new Housing Sites, which is allowed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to address No Net Loss.
The reallocation of units can be accomplished by using sites that provide appropriate densities (30 du/ac or above) to adjust for Lower Income deficiencies, as required by Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv). The Sites with minimum densities of 30 units per acre that will be amended by transferring units include Sites 4, 5, 7, 9, 10b, 11 and 12. Moderate income units from these sites will be transferred to the Lower income category. In addition, moderate income units from the proposed Site #13b will also be transferred, using the revised development capacity, to the Lower income category.
Table 4 below sets forth this approach to reallocating these units to ensure a sufficient Lower Income buffer exists for this development. The current unit numbers to be amended are shown in red strikethrough text, and the proposed unit numbers shown in blue underlined text. The table also shows the units for the proposed development on Site 13a. With the proposed changes, the Lower Income category will increase by 214 units, the Moderate income category will decrease by 190 units, and the Above Moderate income category will decrease by 24 units. The reduction to the Moderate and Above Moderate-income categories does not pose a concern as the existing buffers are high enough to absorb the reduction.
Applying these changes to the Sites Inventory table, as shown below in Table 6, results in a buffer of 125 units for the Lower Income category, 665 for the Moderate-Income category, and 441 buffer for the Above Moderate-Income category. The Sites whose units were transferred Table 4 - Changes to Housing Element Sites Inventory
Site # Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
1 0 6 25 31
2 0 4 18 22
3 6 23 0 29
4 22 32 44 34 44 110
5 48 97 97 72 97 73 242
6 0 0 97 97
7 23 33 46 36 46 115
8 23 93 0 115
9 16 26 63 53 0 79
10a 17 69 0 86
10b 52 76 104 80 104 260
11 61 86 108 83 108 277
12 65 123 259 201 0 324
13a 0 17 147 164
13b 36 64 83 55 0 119
14 10 41 0 51
Previous &
New Totals
379 (P)
593 (N)
1,057 (P)
867 (N)
686 (P)
662 (N)
2,289 (P)
2,122 (N)
Difference +214 -190 -24 -167
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 17
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
are highlighted in green. The amended inventory also reflects the newly created Sites #13a and #13b, with the developer’s proposal of 164 units reflected under Site #13a, and the amended development capacity, to account for No Net Loss, reflected under Site #13b. The transfer of units across the affordability levels is intended to promote the development of housing by redistributing units to establish more even and proportionate buffers. For comparison purposes, Table 5 below shows the existing Sites Inventory.
The proposed Housing Element amendments discussed above will allow the proposed development to move forward and keep the City’s Housing Element in compliance. As required by State law, the proposed amendments were submitted to HCD for review on April 21, 2025 (Attachment 5). On June 5, 2025, HCD responded (Attachment 6) stating that the proposed amendments would not impact the City’s Housing Element compliance and the Housing Element will continue to comply with State Housing Element Law once the amendments have been adopted by the City and reviewed for final certification by HCD.
Please note that when the proposed amendments were submitted to HCD for review, the development consisted of 161 units, 16 of which were affordable. As currently proposed, the development consists of 164 units, 17 of which are affordable to moderate income households. This minor change should not affect HCD’s review. If the proposed amendments are adopted by the City Council, the revised unit count will be provided to HCD for their final review and certification.
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 18
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
ALTERNATIVES
There are no alternatives proposed for this request; however, the Planning Commission may recommend changes to or denial of the proposed project to the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed development has been previously analyzed under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2022110018) for the DTSP. The EIR analyzed development of all parcels within the boundaries of the DTSP. The subject site, which is a portion of Housing Element Site #13, was analyzed for a maximum build out capacity at 45-55 units per acre. Applying the max density to the Applicant’s 9.19-acre site, a maximum of 505 units could be developed on the subject site. As long as the proposed development, or any other development within the DTSP, does not exceed the maximum build out analyzed in the EIR, there is no further environmental review required. In this case, the Applicant has proposed a development of 164 unit with a density of 17.8 units per acre, significantly below the maximum build out analyzed in the DTSP EIR. While the proposed development is exempt from further CEQA review, focused technical studies, including but not limited to Air Quality, Traffic and Sewer studies were still required to ensure there were no impacts caused by the proposed development. These studies have been completed and reviewed by City Staff and was determined that no impacts are anticipated from the proposed development.
In addition to the proposed development, the amendment to the Housing Element must also be considered for CEQA review. The proposed amendments consist of reducing the designated density of 45-55 units per acre to 16-25 units per acre for a portion of Site #13, creating two sites from Site #13 (Site #13a & Site 13b), and transferring unit capacities across affordability levels to address No Net Loss. The proposed amendments will not increase the number of Housing Element Housing Sites, nor will they increase the density of the existing Housing Sites; therefore, they will not impact the Housing Element’s current compliance nor are there any anticipated impacts from the proposed changes. As such, the proposed amendments are exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); CEQA does not apply to this item because there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no additional environmental review is needed at this time for the Housing Element amendment or the development of the 164 units.
Respectfully submitted,
Marco Espinoza
Planning Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution PC-1701
2. Project Plans (architectural, landscaping, fencing and lighting plans)
VTTM 24-04, GPA 24-04, DPR 24-13, & TRP 24-04 Page 19
444 W. Bonita Ave.
For the Meeting of September 18, 2025
3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 84663 (prelim. Grading, wall sections, utility, fire and hydrant plans)
4. Arborist Tree report
5. Housing Element amendment submitted to HCD, April 21, 2025
6. HCD Housing Element amendment response letter, June 5, 2025
7. Affordable Housing Agreement
CITY OF SAN DIMAS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Regularly Scheduled Meeting
Thursday, September 18, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
245 East Bonita Avenue, City Council Chamber
PRESENT
Chairman David Bratt
Vice-Chairman John Davis
Commissioner Margie Green
Commissioner Doran Barnes
Commissioner James Shirley
Director of Community Development Luis Torrico
Planning Manager Marco Espinoza
Assistant Planner Yasmin Dabbous
Assistant City Attorney Michael Huston
Administrative Assistant Caitlyn Cortez
ABSENT
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Bratt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. and Vice-Chairman Davis led the flag salute.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC 1. Approval of July 17, 2025 minutes.
MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Green, seconded by Commissioner Shirley to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
PH 1 Case No’s. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-04 (84663), General Plan Amendment 24-04, Development Plan Review 24-13, & Tree Removal Permit 24-04 PROJ-24-48 & PROJ-24- 59 A request to approve a vesting tract map for condominium purposes for the development of 164 units (attached two- and three- stories), 17 of which will be affordable units (moderateincome); amend the Housing Element to reallocate 89 units across affordability levels from the subject site to seven (7) other existing housing sites (No’s 4, 5, 7, 9, 10b, 11, 12), reduce the density of the subject site from 45-55 DUA to 16-25 DUA, and create two sites from Site 13 (13a & 13b); Development Plan Review for the architectural and site layout review, and the associated removal of a total of 116 trees (80 mature and 36 non-mature trees). The project site is located just East of 444 E. Bonita Ave. (APN’s: 839-016-008 & 8390-014-025)
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
September 18, 2025
Director of Community Development Torrico stated the project presented tonight consists of various applications which will allow construction of 164 townhomes on a site that’s a Housing Element inventory site. This is a large development, the largest the city has had in over ten years.
Given this project is a large multi-family development and that it is being built on a Housing Element site, there are some protections afforded to these developments under the housing crisis act, therefore, we have our Assistant City Attorney here to answer any questions that may come up regarding the authority of the commission in regards to what recommendations can be made for the project in regards to changes.
Staff report presented by Planning Manager Espinoza recommending Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC-1701, recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-04 (84663), General Plan Amendment 24-04, Development Plan Review 24-13, & Tree Removal Permit 24-04 to the City Council.
Commissioner Barnes asked if in terms of street parking, will the residents be able to obtain City permits for street parking.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated residents can get a parking permit, but street parking is limited and it will also depend if residents are willing to walk the long distance, the entrance gate alone is three hundred feet from the street.
Commissioner Barnes asked if there is a purpose to the community being gated.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated it’s the applicant’s preference.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if Site 13b is landlocked.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated yes.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if there is an easement for access to Site 13b.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that this was taken into consideration in the design and Site 13b will likely be able to use the proposed entrance of the development.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if Site 13b would have to make an agreement with the homeowner’s association of Site 13a to use the entrance.
Director of Community Development Torrico stated in the current situation the property is already landlocked which is a discussion they had with Golden State Water, who owns the property. Early in the application process, Staff had conversations with Golden State Water regarding working with the applicant to potentially sell their property to them; however, Golden State Water wants to hold on to the site which is not currently being used.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
September 18, 2025
Planning Manager Espinoza stated Golden State Water came to the City and asked what they could use the land for and Staff doesn’t know how long it will take Golden State Water to decide on what they will do with the property. He added that the original submittal from the applicant was just the site in the red but after further review with staff, the applicant purchased the adjacent lot highlighted in yellow, which is currently an office complex. This will allow for the project to have a larger driveway and additional park area.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked for details on the retaining walls.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the retaining walls at the highest point is twelve feet high and is split into two walls.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked what is going on the wall.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the wall will be decorative and plant material will be added.
The site will be graded and will be lower than the existing uses to the east and north, the regrading of the site is also to meet the drainage requirements.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if the retaining wall on the east side, where the homes are, is subtly decreasing.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated yes, you won’t notice the retaining wall if you live on the east side of the retaining walls, the existing residents will only see a six-foot wall from their property.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if the walls by the three-story homes are taller than the ones by the one and two-story homes at the north/east corner of the project.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated yes, there is a twelve-foot difference so someone may think it’s a two-story building when it’s really a three-story building.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if the publicly available green space along Bonita Ave. will be managed by HOA.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated yes it will.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if there is any liability for the City regarding the public spaces and provided an example of a dog attack in the dog park.
Assistant City Attorney Huston stated if a dog attacks someone in this dog park the City would not be responsible. He would expect its will be Homeowners Association’s (HOA) responsibility but he can’t speak to specific requirements the HOA would typically have in terms of liability insurance.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
September 18, 2025
Vice-Chairman Davis stated most of the buildings are nice and the variations are good, but then you get to the three-story townhouses and they look plain in comparison. He mentioned there isn’t much to the architecture aside from the windows and stucco.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the second story windows do have a shelf that’s not flush which will give architectural details, similar to a pot shelf. On the third floor it has canvas awnings on two windows and most others have shutters. Its finished with a decorative Spanish fence. Since this is the first time the Planning Commission under its new duties is reviewing the architecture of the building and site layout it would be appropriate for the Commission to recommend design changes and or add design features to applicant.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked what the setback is on the west side below the amenity park, between the building and Site 13b. He asked if that space is intended to be a walkway to get to the amenity or is it just a landscape setback.
Director of Community Development Torrico stated that access to the amenity park is through the main street because the setback is approximately seven-feet and the air conditioning units are within that area. He confirmed this is not a walkway.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the applicant designed the interior walkway and along the edge of the east-side, closest to the complex and away from the ten-foot setback. The first ten-feet of the twenty-foot setback is to be fully landscaped.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if the streets are private HOA streets.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated yes.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated the alternative plan has 269 units and mentioned it’s below the minimum density of 45-55 units per acre. He then asked if it still complies with the current zoning and density.
Director of Community Development Torrico stated yes, it complies. The development application was submitted prior to the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan under Senate Bill 35 and Senate Bill 330. When an application is submitted through Senate Bill 330, it locks the project into the development standards in place at that time. The site was zoned Public/Semi-Public. The law reads that you have to apply the development standards of an existing zoning that would allow certain developments. In this case, it would be the multi-family ordinance.
Commissioner Shirley asked if the residents can park in their driveway without blocking the sidewalk.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated no, they can only park in their garage or other designated parking spaces outside, the driveways are too short to accommodate vehicles.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
September 18, 2025
Commissioner Green asked if the developer were to take the Golden State Water property and build there, is there any way to run streets from sites 13a through 13b. She’s concerned about it being landlocked. She also stated that at one point the staff report says that trees will be removed from the both sites, and asked if that was meant to say only Site 13a.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that the tree removal only applies to site 13a and staff will revise the staff report for the City Council meeting.
Commissioner Green stated she only sees five trash areas and she’s concerned it’s not enough.
There is also only one dog station at the publicly accessed open space, she would like to see another one at the community open space. She doesn’t see where the mailboxes are and she would like to make sure they are well lit. She also stated there are only forty-one parking spaces for three hundred people and doesn’t thinks it’s enough.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the applicant has been in discussions with Staff regarding the trash cans. The application was going to have individual trash bins but pickup day becomes a big issue with this many bin units. The communal bins were an alternative and Waste Management has reviewed the project and felt this would be sufficient. Waste Management also confirmed they will pick up trash multiple times a week if needed.
Commissioner Green asked how many units are there in the Grove complex. She stated she saw six trash units in comparison to this project.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated there are eighty to ninety units and he believes those units were built before the change in the law for public waste requirements. The size of the trash bins may also be larger than the multiple bins being proposed. Also, during plan check, Staff will coordinate with the postmaster for the ideal location of the mailboxes.
Director of Community Development Torrico clarified there are eight trash enclosures in the development.
Chairman Bratt asked what the width of the streets are and if the Fire Department has approved this.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the streets are thirty feet wide that include a three-foot-wide wedge curb.
Chairman Bratt stated he doesn’t see a turnaround and asked if this is a Fire Department requirement for the south end of the main street.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the turnaround is at the end of the alley.
Chairman Bratt asked if the forty-one guest parking stalls are all located in the south-east area.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
September 18, 2025
Planning Manager Espinoza stated there is parking located throughout the development and pointed out the different locations on the plan.
Chairman Bratt asked if the street parking reduces the width of the street.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the thirty-feet does not includes the street parking.
Chairman Bratt asked if there will be sidewalks in the development.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated yes, and pointed out the locations of the sidewalks on the plan.
Chairman Bratt asked what the setback is on the east-side of the single-family units.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated it’s twenty-feet to the two-story homes.
Chairman Bratt asked if there will be landscaping and trees on the east-side and what type of trees.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated yes, there will be landscaping and trees, and they will verify the type of trees proposed. The number of trees they are proposing for replacement are canopy trees and they are planting an additional eighty trees for a total number of three hundred sixty-five trees.
They are proposing thirty-five cypress trees and seventeen palm trees which are not considered shade trees.
Chairman Bratt asked if this is the first development being built on a Housing Element site. We aren’t changing the number of units proposed to meet the Housing Element requirements, we are just reallocating the number of units to other Housing Element Sites.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated they are proposing to reallocate the units to different sites to stay within the density levels within each specific site. By doing this, the City is still in compliance and not making significant changes to the Housing Element. The California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) agreed that this modification will comply with the approved Housing Element and will be considered a minor amendment.
Chairman Bratt opened the public hearing.
Speaker 1 - Applicant Matt Waken gave his presentation.
Speaker 2 - Cal Poly Pomona Student asked if there will there be a pedestrian or vehicle gate on the south-side of the complex.
Director of Community Development Torrico stated no, that gate on the south-side is only for emergency vehicle access.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
September 18, 2025
Speaker 3 - Resident on Gaffney Avenue asked if they are trying to get rid of the forestry building.
She stated that behind the property there are railroad tracks and she is concerned with the entrance plan from Gaffney Avenue to Bonita Avenue.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated yes, the forestry site sold a portion of their property which was vacant, the project site will be built on the portion that is vacant. The access gate to E. Hera Street from the project will only be used by emergency vehicles when needed and as an emergency exit point if the main gate is not accessible due to an emergency event. The access with the gate will only be used by emergency vehicles.
Speaker 4 - Resident on Bonita Avenue stated that they have a trash issue with the residents from the apartment complex and he wants to make sure there are enough trash bins in the new complex to ensure this won’t become a future problem. He also asked if the emergency entrance is for police, fire and ambulance.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated the emergency access point strictly for the Fire Department and in the case of a fire, it can be used as a secondary exit for residents to evacuate.
Speaker 4 asked if all the homes on Bonita Avenue will be two stories.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated they are proposed to be two-story and transition into three-story.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that on the Gaffney Avenue side, there is a twenty-foot setback and there will be no windows on the third-story of the proposed buildings Speaker 5 - Cal Poly Pomona Student asked why there weren’t more walkable entrances.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that there are no sidewalks on Gaffney Avenue, so there is not a walkable space to connect to. If the streets were public it would be more of a consideration to put walkable paths but because the streets are private they want to limit entrances.
Chairman Bratt closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated his issue is the articulation of the second floor, but otherwise he is happy with the project and the design.
Commissioner Green stated the colors of the buildings look very similar, the whites all look the same. She agrees the driveways look plain and states that varying the colors of the garage door could make it look better.
Speaker 6 - Applicant’s Architect, (Alan Scales) stated there are six different color schemes giving the development a village concept authentic to Spanish style. The variations will be picked up in person and you can see the depth and character. If you look at the garages you can see the awnings
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
September 18, 2025
that create shadow and add color. The windows are all different configurations so they are scaled to the room they are in. You also see recesses which is authentic to the Spanish architecture.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated the three windows above the garage look the same and I can’t tell if there are any other architectural elements on that wall.
Speaker 6 stated the walls do look different in person and there will be recesses that follow the shape of the window. There are six color schemes used interchangeably, while they are subtle, there will be variation on-site. It’s difficult to see the difference in the printed renderings.
Commissioner Barnes asked how they plan to keep the planters on the second stories maintained.
Speaker 6 stated it’s up to the homeowner and the Homeowners Association will be the one to enforce their standards. Even with just the pot shelf it will give the building dimension.
Commissioner Barnes stated he attended the community meeting and saw the concept plans, and one concern he had is the front gate hinders the walkability and human element. This will be the only place in the community that will have a gate and he’s not a fan of the message it sends.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated that the Avalon apartments are a gated community.
Speaker 1 stated from a safety perspective they felt its appropriate to put a gate. They are not married to that concept and they are open to discussing options with the Planning Commission.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated the gates add value to the community.
Speaker 3 stated that since she’s lived on Gaffney Avenue the apartments have left no privacy in her backyard. She thinks the new development should only be two-story.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated all the buildings are two-story near Gaffney and the third-story doesn’t have windows to look that direction. He stated he is fine with the design as proposed.
Commissioner Barnes stated he’s happy with the project overall, and he’s hopeful families can afford the price point. His personal preference is no gate and prefers this development to be part of the San Dimas community as opposed to being an internal community within the gates.
Commissioner Green stated she likes the gates but doesn’t like that the residents have to punch in and out.
Commissioner Barnes asked if they can compromise and leave the gates open during certain hours.
Commissioner Shirley stated he doesn’t have an issue with gates.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
September 18, 2025
Chairman Bratt stated he can go either way, gate or no gate.
Planning Manager Espinoza reiterated that Commissioner Green mentioned additional dog stations, and additional trashcans with lighting which can be added as conditions. If Planning Commission approves this item tonight, it will be moving forward to City Council in October.
RESOLUTION PC-1701
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24-04 (84663), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 24-04, DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 24-13, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 24-04; WITH AN ASSOCIATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AGREEMENT, A REQUEST TO APPROVE THE A VESTING TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 164 UNITS
(ATTACHED TWO- AND THREE-STORIES), 17 OF WHICH WILL BE
AFFORDABLE UNITS (MODERATE-INCOME); AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO REALLOCATE 89 UNITS ACROSS AFFORDABILITY LEVELS FROM THE SUBJECT SITE TO SEVEN (7) OTHER EXISTING HOUSING SITES (NO’S 4, 5, 7, 9, 10B, 11, 12), REDUCE THE DENSITY OF THE SUBJECT SITE FROM 45-55 DUA TO 16-25 DUA, AND CREATE TWO SITES FROM SITE #13 (13A & 13B);
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE LAYOUT REVIEW, AND THE ASSOCIATED REMOVAL OF A TOTAL OF 116 TREES (80 MATURE AND 36 NON-MATURE TREES). THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED JUST EAST OF 444 E. BONITA AVE. (APN’S: 8390-016-008 & 8390-014-025) MOTION: Moved by Vice-Chairman Davis, seconded by Commissioner Green to adopt Resolution PC-1701, recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24-04 (84663), General Plan Amendment 24-04, Development Plan Review 24-13, & Tree Removal Permit 24-04 to the City Council with the following added conditions:
• Add trash receptacles to the mailboxes area and add sufficient lighting. • Place more dog stations throughout the development within the community open space.
Motion carried 5-0
PUBLIC HEARING
PH 2 Municipal Code Text Amendment 25-05; Discussion and Consideration of a City-Initiated Municipal Code Text Amendment to Amend Title 18 Zoning, to Eliminate Chapter 18.188 Explosives from the Code.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
September 18, 2025
Staff report presented by Assistant Planner Dabbous recommending Planning Commission approve Resolution PC-1699 recommending City Council adopt MCTA 25-05.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked where fireworks land in the code.
Assistant Planner Dabbous stated fireworks are located in Title 9 Public Peace, Morals and Welfare. Specifically, Chapter 9.27 states fireworks are prohibited to manufacture, possess, display, sell, or explode.
Chairman Bratt opened the public hearing.
No communications were made.
Chairman Bratt closed the public hearing.
RESOLUTION PC-1699
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
25-05, A CITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 ZONING,
ELIMINATING CHAPTER 18.188 EXPLOSIVES IN ITS ENTIRETY.
MOTION: Moved by Vice-Chairman Davis, seconded by Commissioner Green to approve Resolution PC-1699, recommending City Council adopt MCTA 25-05.
Motion carried 5-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
a. Community Development Department
Director of Community Development Torrico gave updates:
• Update on changes to single family ordinances. Approved at the last council meeting. • RC homes housing development hasn’t gone to City Council but they are expecting to go within the next month or two.
b. Members of the Audience
No communications were made.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
September 18, 2025
c. Planning Commission
No communications were made.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Vice-Chairman Davis moved, seconded by Commissioner Green Motion carried 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 16, 2025.
________________________________
David A. Bratt, Chairman
San Dimas Planning Commission
ATTEST:
_______________________
Caitlyn Cortez
Administrative Assistant
Approved: September 18, 2025
ATTACHMENT 9