Agenda packet, regular meeting — Sierra Madre City Council, February 24, 2026 (part 1 of 5)

CITY OF

SIERRA MADRE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Mayor Kristine Lowe | Mayor Pro Tem Gene Goss
Council Member Edward Garcia | Council Member Kelly Kriebs | Council Member Robert Parkhurst Tuesday, February 24, 2026, 5:30 P.M.

City Council Chambers, 232 W. Sierra Madre Blvd.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626) 574-5455. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT & ACCESS
The Brown Act provides the public with an opportunity to make public comments at any public meeting. As an alternative, public comment may be submitted by e-mail to [email protected] by 3:00PM on the day of the meeting. Emails will be acknowledged at the City Council meeting, filed into public record, and scanned onto the City website for public review.

A copy of the posted agenda and a live video stream of the meeting can be found on the City’s website at sierramadreca.gov , on Foothills Media website at foothillsmedia.org/sierramadre, and broadcast on Government Access Channel 3 (Spectrum).

If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 355-7135 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

CODE OF CONDUCT
The purpose of a City Council meeting is to conduct City business. Members of the public that behave in a manner that interrupts or obstructs the City Council’s ability to conduct City business may be asked to leave the meeting. Any and all demonstrations which disrupt, interrupt, or obstruct the City Council’s ability to conduct City business are prohibited. No signs, posters, or other large objects shall be brought into the Council Chambers or other meeting place if doing so would disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly course of the meeting.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INSPIRATION
Council Member Kriebs

3. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristine Lowe, Mayor
Gene Goss, Mayor Pro Tem
Edward Garcia, Council Member
Kelly Kriebs, Council Member
Robert Parkhurst, Council Member

4. REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiator (G.C. 54956.8) Property: 350 Sierra Madre Blvd., Sierra Madre, CA 91024 City Negotiator: Michael Bruckner, City Manager
Negotiating Party: Thomas Swick
Under Negotiation: Terms of Payment
B. Public Liability Claims (Gov. Code 54956.95)
Claimant: Roland and Julie Fargo
Claim Against: City of Sierra Madre

5. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY CLERK REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS

6. REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL (including reports from City Council related to meetings attended at City expense per AB 1234)

7. REPORTS FROM CITY STAFF

8. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation for the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Soil Testing Timeline

9. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Any person wishing to speak before the City Council is asked to complete a Speaker Card and provide it to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Speakers are generally limited to three (3) minutes per person and time may not be delegated; any changes to the allotted time will be announced prior to the Public Comment period.

Under the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda.

Addressing the City Council from the audience is not permitted; all comments addressing the Council must be made from the podium. Only public comment made from the podium will be recognized by the City Council and entered into public record.

10. PUBLIC HEARING
Any person wishing to speak before the City Council on a public hearing item is asked to complete a Speaker Card noting the agenda item number and provide it to the City Clerk prior to the start of the public hearing. Separate and apart from the applicant (who may speak longer in the discretion of the City Council) speakers are generally limited to three (3) minutes per person; any changes to the allotted time will be announced prior to the Public Comment period. Under the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The applicant may additionally submit rebuttal comments, at the discretion of the City Council.

A. Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02) for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project CEQA: Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21100, state law requires the preparation of an EIR for proposed projects that may have a significant effect on the environment. The EIR is an informational document intended for use by the City of Sierra Madre as the lead agency, other public agencies, and members of the public. 14 CCR Section 15090 requires a lead agency to certify the final EIR prior to approving a proposed project.

Recommended Action: Adopt

11. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council requests that a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action.

A. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2026
CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Approve
B. Resolution No. 26-15 Approving Certain Demands for Payment CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Approve
C. Quarterly Treasurer’s Report – Quarter Ending December 31, 2025 CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Receive and File
D. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Receive and File
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1490 Amending Section 3.08.040 of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code Related to Purchasing for Non-Public Projects
CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Adopt
F. Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Engineering for Public Works Inspection Services for the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Development Project, in an Amount Not to Exceed $340,260 CEQA: Exempt
Recommended Action: Approve
G. Resolution No. 26-16 Approving a Supplemental Budget Appropriation and Professional Services Agreement with Transpo Group USA, Inc. in the Amount of $49,995 for the Sierra Madre Downtown Parking Study
CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Approve
H. Resolution No. 26-17 Calling a Special Election for Tuesday, June 2, 2026, to Place a Measure to Override the Gann Limit on the Ballot; Resolution 26-18 Requesting the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors render specified services, and Resolutions 26-19 and 26-20 authorizing written arguments and rebuttal statements for ballot measures
CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Approve

12. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Report, Discussion, and Direction on Potential Economic Development Programs CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Provide Direction
B. Resolution No. 26-21 Amending the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $200,000 for Wildfire Recovery and Resilience Improvements funded by the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District Restore Grant CEQA: Not a Project
Recommended Action: Approve

13. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS

14. ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will adjourn to its next regular meeting on N/A.

Date Posted: February 24, 2026

CITY OF

SIERRA MADRE STAFF REPORT

PLANNING & COMMUNITY PRESERVATION
DATE: February 24, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Clare Lin, Planning & Community Preservation Director By: Aleks Giragosian, City Attorney
Joshua Wolf, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02) for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-14 approving Design Review Permit 25-02, related to The Meadows at Bailey Canyon project.

SUMMARY
On January 15, 2026, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02) for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project (the Project), pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-01. In accordance with Sierra Madre Municipal Code section 17.60.120, the resolution of the Planning Commission shall become effective on the tenth business day, or February 2, 2026, unless within such time an appeal is filed in writing or the City Council makes a call for review. On January 29, 2026, non-applicant appellant Philip Yao filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.

PROCEDURE
Sierra Madre Municipal Code Section 17.66.070 provides procedures for appeals. In accordance with these procedures, the City Council scheduled a Public Hearing (Hearing) for the appeal on the first available regular meeting of the City Council, February 24, 2026. The Hearing shall be conducted de novo. During this Hearing, the City Council shall consider all pertinent materials, including all documents constituting the administrative record. At the Hearing, all exhibits, notices, petitions and other papers and documents on file with the Planning Commission will be presented. At the Hearing, any party or person may appear in person or by agent or attorney to provide testimony.

Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 2 of 11 ends

Following an appeal Hearing, the City Council may remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration or may affirm in whole or in part, modify, or reverse the decision appealed. If the City Council does not remand the matter to the Planning Commission, it shall make the findings prescribed for a design review permit. The City Council decision shall be made within thirty (30) days of the Hearing date, or March 26, 2026. The City Clerk shall mail notice of the City Council decision to the applicant and to the appellant within five business days after the date of the decision.

This project is subject to a limited number of hearings because it qualifies as a “housing development project” pursuant to Government Code Section 65905.5. The Planning Commission conducted one public hearing and approved the project at the first hearing. This Public Hearing for the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision constitutes the second of five available public hearings.

ANALYSIS
The appeal application articulates five separate reasons for the appeal:
1) “The Eaton Canyon fire of 2025 substantially altered site soils, hydrology, and fire behavior within a VHFHSZ (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone), and the CEQA Environmental Review is inadequate due to the changed circumstances.” 2) “The Planning Commission’ findings that the project’s height, bulk, scale, mass, and siting are compatible with the existing neighborhood, landforms, and surroundings is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and is therefore erroneous and an abuse of discretion.”
3) “The finding fails to adequately address consistency with the Sierra Madre General Plan and design review standards emphasizing preservation of the neighborhood character, open space, and visual harmony.”
4) “The CEQA analysis of aesthetic and visual impacts (including potential effects on historical or character-defining resources) is inadequate, rendering the compatibility finding unsupported.”
5) “I was denied proper notice, in violation of applicable open-meeting and procedural requirements.”
Each reason for the appeal is analyzed in turn.

No Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR is Necessary Following the Eaton Fire The City may not reconsider the adequacy of a certified EIR, unless specific events transpire.

Public Resources Code section 21166 states, “When an environmental impact report has been Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 3 of 11 ends

prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.” Article 11 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes three different types of reporting following an EIR.

The first is a “Subsequent EIR”, which is triggered by those factors listed above in Public Resources Code Section 21166. (14 CCR 15162.) The second is a “Supplemental EIR” which may be prepared where one of the subsequent EIR conditions are satisfied and, “Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.” (14 CCR 15163(a).) The third is an “Addendum to an EIR” which, “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare … if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” (14 CCR 15164.)
Courts generally defer to a City’s determination to prepare a Subsequent EIR, Supplemental EIR, or an Addendum to the EIR so long as the City can demonstrate substantial evidence to support the decision. (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788 (2014).) Courts have explained that, “section 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired, and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301).”
“Thus, while section 21151 is intended to create a ‘low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR’ [citation], [section 21166] indicates a quite different intent, namely, to restrict the powers of agencies ‘by prohibiting [them] from requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report’ unless the stated conditions are met. [Citation.]”(Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073–1074.) CEQA's subsequent review provisions are “designed to balance CEQA's central purpose of promoting consideration of the environmental consequences of public decisions with interests in finality and efficiency.” (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937.) Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 4 of 11 ends

On September 27, 2022, the City Council certified the EIR for the Project. The Eaton Fire occurred in January 2025 and burned a number of homes near or adjacent to the Project. Portions of the field within the Project site also burned. The appellant argues that the Eaton Fire substantially altered the soils, hydrology, and fire behavior within the northern half of the City, and, for that reason, the Project’s certified EIR is inadequate due to “the changed circumstances.” Section 4.7 of the certified EIR analyzed soil geology, including issues regarding compaction, stability, and collapse. The applicant’s appeal does not articulate and City staff is not aware of any substantial change or new information that undermines the analysis in the certified EIR. No soil testing for contaminants was completed as part of the EIR.

Section 4.9 of the certified EIR analyzed hazards and hazardous materials. That section analyzed a number of different environmental topics, including, “Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment” and, “Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?” While hazardous materials following a fire are not directly addressed in the EIR, the discussion in the section relates to such hazardous materials generally.

The City is aware of soil contamination on parcels with burnt structures. The City has been working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Army Corp. of Engineers, and Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Health (LACDPH) to remediate soil contamination. But the Project site does not have a burnt structure, and the City is not aware of a presumption of contamination on sites adjacent to parcels with burnt structures. If such a presumption were adopted, it could have broad application to many other potential private developments throughout the City. For that reason, the City did not recommend the Planning Commission mandate the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.

Regardless of any presumption, in May 2025, the City decided to mandate soil testing as a condition of the Project’s grading permit to ameliorate residents’ concerns regarding potential recontamination. The City decided to condition the soil test and any potential remediation on the approval of a grading permit because the grading permit is the first major step in any development and has the greatest impact on soil disturbance.

Following the Planning Commission’s approval, the applicant performed soil testing on the site and developed a soil management plan dated January 27, 2026. According to the soil management plan, “Soil analytical results indicate that dioxin concentrations at sample location FS-2 exceeded the applicable residential screening level of 4.8E-06 established by the EPA Region IX Regional Screening Levels for residential soil.” (Section 3.3 of the Soil Management Plan). The soil management plan was reviewed by the City’s independent consultant Group Delta on Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 5 of 11 ends

February 4, 2026, which proposed additional soil remediation. The remediation measures were incorporated into grading permit as conditions of approval.

Since the City Council’s review is de novo, staff believes the applicant should prepare and the City Council should review an Addendum to the EIR to note the additional testing and soil remediation. There are no “substantial changes … with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR … due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” (14 CCR 15162(a)(2).) The facts remain the same. The subject parcel was an unimproved site and remains an unimproved site. There were no structures that burnt on site as a result of the Eaton Fire that create a presumption of soil contamination.

Nor is there “New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete … was adopted, [which shows]:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”
Here, the certified EIR never considered the soil contaminants that were recently tested as part of the soil management plan. The Project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the certified EIR because the soil remediation is complete. The contaminants have already been mitigated. These mitigation measures do not need to be imposed as a condition of the EIR, but should be reflected in an Addendum to the EIR to capture the steps taken to date.

Under 14 CCR 15164(a), “The lead agency … shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 6 of 11 ends

Section 4.10 of the certified EIR analyzed the impacts of hydrology and water quality. The applicant’s appeal does not articulate, and the City is not aware of any substantial change or new information that undermines the analysis in the certified EIR.

Section 4.20 of the certified EIR analyzed the impacts of wildfire. The applicant’s appeal does not articulate, and the City is not aware of any substantial change or new information that undermines the analysis in the certified EIR. While no California case directly addresses wildfires as changed circumstances requiring a Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR, federal precedent provides guidance. In Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation (9th Cir. 1994) 42 F.3d 517, an agency's decision not to supplement an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Pollution Act after wildfires was upheld because the initial environmental impact statement had taken into account the effects of the natural fires in the area.

The Planning Commission’s Findings Regarding the Design Standards are Supported by Substantial Evidence and Consistent with the Specific Plan and the Housing Accountability Act Under traditional design review, the Planning Commission has full discretion to determine whether an individual project complies with the City’s Zoning Code. Under SMMC Section

17.60.041(D)(3), the Planning Commission must find, “The height, bulk, scale, mass and siting of the proposed project is compatible with the existing neighborhood, landforms and surroundings.” However, the Planning Commission cannot exercise its full discretion for this Project because:
1) the Specific Plan articulates a separate set of applicable design standards outside the City’s published municipal code, and
2) this Project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act – Government Code Section 65589.5
Limitations to the Exercise of Discretion Under the Specific Plan Section 6.2.2 of the Specific Plan states, “The proposed development of the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City’s Design Review process and … The Planning Commission shall review the project in its entirety and make a substantial conformance determination for the full set of architectural plans including the conceptual grading plan included in the Specific Plan (See Figure 4-2). … The Planning Commission shall review the application to ensure the proposed development is consistent with, and serves to implement, the goals, policies, standards, and design guidelines of the Specific Plan. No additional plans, materials, studies, environmental review, or technical analyses shall be required except as provided in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Meadow Specific Plan or as otherwise required by law.”
Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 7 of 11 ends

Under traditional design review and SMMC Section 17.60.041, the Planning Commission may determine whether a project conforms to the development standards in the Zoning Code and is authorized to interpret the Zoning Code to make determinations that are more subjective in nature, such as whether a, “proposed project is compatible with the existing neighborhood.” Under the Specific Plan, the relevant development standards are not those published in City’s municipal code, but those articulated in the Specific Plan itself. Further, the Planning Commission’s authority to interpret the Code is severely constrained as any design review must be limited to a determination regarding whether the, “proposed development is consistent with, and serves to implement, the goals, policies, standards, and design guidelines of the Specific Plan.” The Planning Commission cannot rely on external design elements such as, “compatibility with the existing neighborhood, landforms and surroundings.” Those subjective interpretations are outside the scope of the factors to be reviewed. In other words, if the proposed design is consistent with the goals, policies, standards, and design guidelines of the Specific Plan, then the Project should “substantially conform” for purposes of design review.

Limitations to the Exercise of Discretion Under the Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act limits the City’s ability to exercise its discretion. Government Code section 65589.5(j)(1) articulates the relevant standard of review, stating, “When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record … .” Under the Housing Accountability Act, a City cannot base a decision on development standards that are not objective. Government Code 65589.5 defines “objective” to mean “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Many of the findings under SMMC 17.60.041(D) do not meet the definition of “objective” under the Housing Accountability Act. For example, a determination regarding whether “the proposed project is compatible with the existing neighborhood, landforms and surroundings” is not uniformly verifiable and requires a degree of personal or subjective judgment. In fact, all the findings under SMMC 17.60.041(D), with the exception of (D)(1), likely do not satisfy the Housing Accountability Act’s definition of objective.

Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 8 of 11 ends

For that reason, the City Council cannot deny the Project or reduce its density based on the findings under SMMC 17.60.041(D).

The Planning Commission’s Findings Address the General Plan and Design Review Standards:

SMMC Section 17.60.041(D) states the findings that need to be made by the reviewing body prior to the issuance of a design review permit. Embedded within those findings under Sub-Section (D)(1) is a finding that, “The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, zoning code and any applicable design standards.”
Section 2 of Planning Commission Resolution 26-01 makes the required findings for a design review permit under SMMC Section 17.60.041(D). Regarding the General Plan, Sub-Section (D)(1) states that the proposed single-family homes “are uses permitted by and consistent with the General Plan…” The staff report identifies the parcel as Residential Low Density General Plan designation.

Regarding architecture and design, Resolution 26-01 makes a robust finding that addresses: 1) building mass, form, scale, and articulation; 2) roof treatment; 3) windows and doors; 4) exterior materials and colors; and 5) balconies, porches, and porticos.

The Planning Commission’s CEQA Determination is Correct:

The City may not reconsider the adequacy of a certified EIR, unless specific events transpire.

Public Resources Code section 21166 states, “When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.” On September 27, 2022, the City Council certified the EIR for the Project. The Planning Commission exempted the Project from further CEQA review under 14 CCR 15182(c), as a residential project implementing a specific plan that was approved alongside a certified EIR. As discussed above, the appellant’s grounds for appeal do not articulate some substantial change or new information that would have triggered a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.

Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 9 of 11 ends

The City Noticed the Public Hearing Pursuant to State and Local Law:

The City made every effort to provide notice to property owners per State law and the Sierra Madre Municipal Code. There are three required methods of noticing.

State Public Hearing Notice Requirement:

Government Code section 65091(a)(4), states, “Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property that is the subject of the hearing. In lieu of using the assessment roll, the local agency may use records of the county assessor or tax collector which contain more recent information than the assessment roll.” For this Project, the City developed a list of residents within a 300-foot radius of the Project’s boundary based on the assessment rolls and delivered that notice via a postcard with return receipt requested through the United States Postal Service. The City did not receive an undeliverable notice from USPS for any address on the list.

Local Public Hearing Notice Requirement:

The Sierra Madre Municipal Code requires both the mailed notice above and the posting of a notice on the property. SMMC Section 17.60.100(B) states, “A notice of public hearing sign, meeting the criteria set forth below, shall be posted a minimum of fourteen days prior to the scheduled public hearing, and the sign shall remain in place until the expiration of the appeal period following a decision by the Planning Commission. If an appeal to the City Council is filed, a new public hearing sign complying with this section shall be posted. Failure to post the sign on the property by the applicant shall result in the automatic continuance of the project to the next available planning commission or city council meeting.” The City confirmed the sign was posted to the Project site.

Brown Act Notice Requirement:

The Brown Act requires an agenda to be posted and uploaded to the City’s website. Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(1) states, “At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda that meets all of the following requirements: ….” The City posted the agenda and agenda packet on January 8, 2026, at City Hall and to the City’s website.

Even if the appellant did not receive notice by the three means identified above, failure to receive notice is not ground to overturn a decision by the Planning Commission. Government Code Section 68093 states, “The failure of any person or entity to receive notice given pursuant to this title, … shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the actions of a local agency for which the notice was given.”
Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 10 of 11 ends

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this Public Hearing was provided in accordance with Sierra Madre Municipal Code sections 17.60.100 and 17.66.070 by direct communication via electronic mail to the applicant and appellant, posting of a notice of Public Hearing sign at the entrances to the project site, and mailing of notice of Public Hearing postcards to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. Additionally, notice of this Public Hearing was published to the City’s website at sierramadreca.gov/meadows.

STRATEGIC PLAN RELATIONSHIP
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund as a result of the recommended action. Staff time was used in the preparation of this report. Staff costs in preparation of this report are not fully recovered from a $1,000 flat-rate fee for appeals by a non-applicant established by the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 23-14.

Approved by:
___________________________
Michael Bruckner
City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. City Council Resolution No. 26-14

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-01

3. Planning Commission Staff Report re: Design Review Permit 25-02 a. Planning Commission Resolution 26-01 (as considered) b. Consistency Review Matrix
c. Project Site Plans, Materials, and Colors
d. The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan

4. Public Comments received for the Planning Commission meeting of January 15, 2026 Resolution No. 26-14 and Appeal Public Hearing for The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Project February 24, 2026

Page 11 of 11 ends

5. Filed Application for Appeal of Decisions
1 430392.1

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 26-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRP 25-02) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 42 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, LANDSCAPING IN 6 OPEN SPACE LOTS AND LANDSCAPING OF ONE CITY PUBLIC PARK AT 700 NORTH SUNNYSIDE AVENUE

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 22-58, certifying the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was completed in compliance with CEQA, approved General Plan Land Use Map Amendment to Residential Low Density; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1461 approving Zoning Map Amendment to Residential Single Family, The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”), and the Development Agreement at 700 North Sunnyside Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 22-01, including Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 83966, was approved by City Council on February 27, 2024, granting the subdivision of a 17-acre site to 42 single-family residential lots, 6 open space lots, and one city public park and providing approximately 3.68 acres of land as dedicated public right-of-way.

WHEREAS, an application for a Design Review Permit was filed by:

NUWI-Sierra Madre, LLC
2001 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the City approved an Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement between NUWI-Sierra Madre, LLC and Toll West Coast LLC.

WHEREAS, the new applicant for purposes of this Design Review Permit is:

Toll West Coast LLC
1140 Virginia Road
Fort Washington, PA 19034
ATTACHMENT 1
2 430392.1
WHEREAS, the Design Review Permit can be described as:

Implementation of the Specific Plan: a request for the construction of 42 singlefamily dwellings, a 3-acre city public park, and landscaping within 6 open space lots (“Project”);
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted the Design Review Permit application on May 8, 2025, the Applicant provided revisions to the original submittal on October 2 and December 10, 2025, and the City deemed the application complete on December 22, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2026, the Planning Commission received the report and recommendations of staff; and
WHEREAS, following public notice, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 15, 2026, with all testimony being received being made part of the public record; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission received written and oral evidence, all of which evidence is deemed to be part of the record of this proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02) for the construction of 42 single-family residential dwellings, landscaping in 6 open space lots and landscaping of one city public park, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 26-01 and subject to appeal period concluding on the 10th business day following the decision, or February 2, 2026; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2026, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by appellant:

Philip Yao
513 Sierra Keys Drive
Sierra Madre, CA 91024
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the City Council scheduled a hearing for the appeal on February 24, 2026, in accordance with Sierra Madre Municipal Code Section

17.66.070; and
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing for the appeal was provided in the same manner as required for the Design Review Permit, in accordance with Sierra Madre Municipal Code Sections 17.60.100 and 17.66.070; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a hearing de novo on February 24, 2026, CC Resolution 26-14 February 24, 2026
3 430392.1
considering all materials pertinent to the Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02), including documents constituting the administrative record.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the evidence received at the hearing, and for the reasons discussed by the Planning Commission at said hearing, City Council now finds as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. Findings for approval of a Design Review Permit. Specific Plan Section 6.2.2 states that the proposed development of the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City’s Design Review process. Sierra Madre Municipal Code Section 17.60.041 provides the process and findings required for the approval of a Design Review Permit.

In accordance, the City Council finds substantial basis for approval of the Design Review Permit based on the following facts.

1. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, zoning code and any applicable design standards.

The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Zoning Code, and all applicable design standards, including the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan and its adopted architectural design guidelines. The Specific Plan establishes the zoning and design guidelines for the site, including the requirement that each home’s style be selected from one of four approved styles. Conditions of Approval nos. 2.4.2 through 2.4.4 ensure that development of the Project remains consistent with the design standards of the Specific Plan. The Project’s Park improvements and landscaping adhere to the development and design standards of the Specific Plan and are uses permitted by and consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Condition of Approval no. 2.4.1 ensures that the Project’s landscaping remain consistent with the development and design standards of the Specific Plan and comply with the Sierra Madre Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Therefore, the Project satisfies all applicable land-use, development, and design requirements established in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan and its design guidelines. For architecture, the Project adheres to the Specific Plan’s design standards and the intent of the City’s design review criteria through the following characteristics:
• Building Mass, Form, Scale, and Articulation. The Specific Plan requires that building mass and form be consistent with the chosen architectural style. Each house design employs forms and roof heights appropriate to its style, and no two adjacent homes use identical façades. Roof massing is varied through parapets, hips, and gables, and most elevations break up larger volumes into smaller components. Primary façades include articulation and fenestration to avoid monotony; many homes incorporate second-story setbacks, intermediate roof offsets, and wall plane changes. These design strategies fulfill the Specific Plan’s articulation requirements of applying multiple listed techniques per CC Resolution 26-14 February 24, 2026
4 430392.1
façade, while oversized or disproportional elements such as two-story faux columns are generally avoided.
• Roof Treatment. Roof forms vary within each architectural style and are articulated with changes in height, slope direction, and multiple roof planes. For example, Modern homes use flat roofs with parapets and clerestory bands; Craftsman homes have low gabled roofs; Spanish homes employ low hip roofs; and Farmhouse homes feature front gables with overhanging eaves. Materials including cementitious wood shakes, standing-seam metal, and concrete tile are matched to each style, with eave lines, fascia, and dormers applied consistently on all elevations. Collectively, these roof design elements provide variation and interest and reinforce separation of masses, consistent with the Specific Plan’s roof design standards.
• Windows and Doors. Window placement and proportions have been tailored to each style, with frames, shutters, and hardware proportionate and consistent across all elevations. The plans contain balanced window groupings and sizes appropriate to the style. Primary entry doors are prominent on front façades and typically sheltered by porches or overhangs. Door surrounds and hardware reflect the selected style, and entry openings are scaled to the building, avoiding oversized portals. These treatments fulfill the Specific Plan’s standards for balanced and style-appropriate window and door design. • Exterior Materials and Colors. The Project’s material palette follows the guideline limiting façades to no more than two primary materials per façade.

Wall claddings include stucco, wood or fiber-cement lap siding, stone veneer, and board-and-batten siding, with trim and accents in complementary colors.

No prohibited materials such as plain plywood, corrugated metal, or reflective surfaces are used. Color palettes are subdued and appropriate to each style.

All finishes are non-reflective and durable, and transitions in materials generally occur at inside corners or changes in plane, consistent with design guidelines.

The selected materials and colors are compatible with both the individual home styles and the neighborhood context.
• Utilities and Equipment. Visible mechanical equipment and utility fixtures have been designed to minimize visual impact, in accordance with the Specific Plan.

Mechanical equipment, meters, and similar items are located in side or rear yards where feasible or are screened with enclosures or landscaping. All exposed conduit, outlets, and hardware are finished to blend with adjacent wall colors. Gutters and downspouts are integrated with trim elements and are painted to match building colors to avoid a visually “tacked on” appearance.

These measures satisfy the Specific Plan’s requirements for utility integration and screening.
• Balconies, Porches, and Porticos. Covered entries, porches, or balconies are incorporated consistent with each architectural style and are scaled appropriately to the building mass. Craftsman homes include tapered columns on stone bases; Farmhouse homes have simple square posts and open porches; and Modern homes use flat metal canopies. Porch and balcony elements are integrated into façades through roof overhangs and railings, CC Resolution 26-14 February 24, 2026
5 430392.1
providing articulation and contributing to a pedestrian-oriented streetscape in accordance with design standards.

2. The proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the use, possession and enjoyment of surrounding and adjacent properties.

The homes are designed and sited so as not to unreasonably interfere with the use, possession or enjoyment of surrounding properties. The 42 detached homes are of single-family scale and are separated by private drives and open space. The development transitions to adjacent neighborhoods at modest heights and densities, and landscaping (including fuel-modification planting) further buffers views between properties. The Project conforms with the Good Neighbor Plan contained within the Specific Plan as demonstrated through an additional 20-foot buffer distance provided between homes on the west side of Sunnyside Avenue and homes adjacent to the west of the development site. No evidence shows undue loss of privacy, overshadowing, or noise beyond that normally expected in a residential community.

3. The height, bulk, scale, mass and siting of the proposed project is compatible with the existing neighborhood, landforms and surroundings.

The massing, form and height of each proposed home have been designed to be compatible with the existing foothill village context. All homes are limited in height per the Specific Plan, and building articulations, such as second-story step-backs and roof variations, help reduce the visual bulk. The overall site is a gently graded former institutional site; homes generally step down the natural slope. The spacing of buildings, varied rooflines, and modest floor-to-floor heights help the Project reflect the scale of Sierra Madre’s neighborhoods. No building is so large or tall as to visually dominate the site or the skyline; thus the project “does not visually overpower or dominate the neighborhood.”

4. The proposed project reflects the scale of the neighborhood in which it is proposed and it does not visually overpower or dominate the neighborhood and is not ill-proportioned so as to produce either architecture or design that detracts from the foothill village setting.

The design respects Sierra Madre’s “foothill village” setting. The Specific Plan vision emphasizes a “distinctly Sierra Madre” character achieved through variety of styles that reflect the community’s “eclectic charm.” The proposed Modern, Spanish, Craftsman and Farmhouse homes collectively present a cohesive yet varied streetscape in a traditional grid pattern, fully avoiding the construction of a cul-de-sac. By avoiding excessive scale or overly monumental forms, the architecture avoids detracting from the hillside context. Elements such as shallow hipped or gabled rooflines (in Spanish and Farmhouse styles) and articulated roof planes (in Modern and Craftsman styles) help relate the buildings to the low hillsides and the backdrop of mature trees.

CC Resolution 26-14 February 24, 2026
6 430392.1

5. The proposed project neither unreasonably interferes with public views or the views and privacy of neighbors, produces unreasonable noise levels, nor causes material adverse impacts.

The project preserves key public views toward the mountains and does not unduly impair existing sightlines. Because homes are modest in height and set back or step-down from the ridgeline, public vistas across open space and through the site to Bailey Canyon Park remain largely intact. Likewise, the privacy of neighboring residents is respected by orienting balconies and windows away from proximate existing homes, as guided by the Specific Plan. The project does not introduce noise or lighting impacts beyond standard residential use, which are mitigated through strategic placement of structural or plant screening techniques.

6. The proposed project exhibits a coherent project-wide design, and each structure or portion thereof (especially additions) on the site is compatible with other portions of the project, regardless of whether the same are publicly visible.

Although the development includes multiple styles, it exhibits a unified, “coherent project-wide” design. The Specific Plan expressly encourages a “diversity of design, styles, and character” while requiring that each home on its lot adhere to one of the approved styles. Consistent with Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, each floor plan is offered in several style options (e.g. Plan 1A Modern, 1B Spanish, etc.), and each style is applied consistently on each individual home’s elevations.

Common features such as similar porch depths, column profiles, and material palettes (e.g. use of painted wood trim and stucco or siding) tie the neighborhoods together. The grid layout and uniform setbacks further harmonize the varied architecture. Thus, the mix of Contemporary Modern, Spanish, Craftsman and Farmhouse homes is compatible with itself and with the adjacent retreat center and neighborhoods, as the Specific Plan envisions.

7. For proposed projects seeking relief from development standards, where allowed, to accommodate characteristics of an identifiable architectural style (such as additional height pursuant to subsection 17.20.027(A)), the proposed project adheres to the norms of such identifiable architectural style and that such style is consistently carried through on all elevations of the building, regardless of whether the same are publicly visible.

The project is not seeking additional height beyond standards, but each style is represented faithfully per Specific development and design standards and guidelines. All elevations of each home use consistent details appropriate to the style. For example, Spanish Revival homes feature stucco walls and low-pitched clay tile roofs; Craftsman homes have gabled porches, tapered wood columns, and horizontal lap siding; Farmhouse homes show board-and-batten or clapboard siding with simple gables; and Modern homes use streamlined forms, flat or shallow roofs, and large fixed windows. These elements implement the characterdefining features of each style. Thus, the project “adheres to the norms” of the selected styles and carries them through on all elevations.

CC Resolution 26-14 February 24, 2026
7 430392.1

8. For proposed projects that require discretionary review due to exceeding size thresholds (pursuant to subsections 17.20.027(C), 17.30.045(B),

17.28.070(A)1 or similar), that the proposed is a superior project that would enhance its neighborhood and exhibit exceptional design through a combination of most, if not all, of the following:

This finding does not apply because the Project does not exceed any size threshold established by the Specific Plan.

SECTION 3. CEQA. The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Section 15182(c) Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1, 1980, a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that specific plan is exempt from CEQA if the project meets the requirements of this section. The Project including residential planned unit developments that are undertaken consistent with the Specific Plan are exempt from CEQA, regardless of their location. However, the exemption requires review to ensure that the project would not create any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously disclosed in the original environmental document, as described in Guidelines §15162.

On September 27, 2022, the City Council certified the EIR for the Project. The Planning Commission exempted the Project from further CEQA review under 14 CCR 15182(c), as a residential project implementing a specific plan that was approved alongside a certified EIR. The appellant’s grounds for appeal do not articulate some substantial change or new information that would have triggered a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.

There are no “substantial changes … with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR … due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” (14 CCR 15162(a)(2).) The facts remain the same. The subject parcel was an unimproved site and remains an unimproved site. There were no structures that burnt on site as a result of the Eaton Fire that create a presumption of soil contamination. The certified EIR never considered the soil contaminants that were recently tested as part of the soil management plan. The Project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the certified EIR because the soil remediation is complete. The contaminants have already been mitigated.

Section 4.10 of the certified EIR analyzed the impacts of hydrology and water quality. The applicant’s appeal does not articulate, and City staff is not aware of any substantial change or new information that undermines the analysis in the certified EIR.

Section 4.20 of the certified EIR analyzed the impacts of wildfire. The applicant’s appeal does not articulate, and City staff is not aware of any substantial change or new information that undermines the analysis in the certified EIR. While no California case directly addresses wildfires as changed circumstances requiring a Supplemental EIR or CC Resolution 26-14 February 24, 2026
8 430392.1
Subsequent EIR, federal precedent provides guidance. In Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. U.S.

Department of Transportation (9th Cir. 1994) 42 F.3d 517, an agency's decision not to supplement an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Pollution Act after wildfires was upheld because the initial environmental impact statement had taken into account the effects of the natural fires in the area.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof or exhibit hereto is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof or exhibit thereto. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraph, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION 5. Certification. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36932, the City Clerk shall certify the passage, approval, and adoption of this Resolution by the City Council.

SECTION 6. Decision. The City Council conditionally grants approval and issues DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT 25-02, subject to the attached conditions included in this resolution as Exhibit A.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED the 24th day of February 2026. ________________________
Kristine Lowe, Mayor
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Sierra Madre, California, at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

CC Resolution 26-14 February 24, 2026
9 430392.1

Laura Aguilar, City Clerk
1 430392.1 430392.1

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT 25-02 (DRP 25-02)
The applicant, property owner, or successor(s) in interest shall meet the following conditions:

1.0 General Conditions:

1.1 Comply with all applicable provisions of The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan and the Sierra Madre Municipal Code, including but not limited to those Chapters pertaining to Zoning, Building and Construction, Vehicles and Traffic, and Health and Safety, and including all such provisions which may be contained in Uniform Codes which have been incorporated by reference within the Sierra Madre Municipal Code.

1.2 Comply with all applicable provisions of Federal, State, and Los Angeles County law and regulations, including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act.

1.3 Execute and deliver to the City’s Department of Planning & Community Preservation an Affidavit of Acceptance of Conditions on a form to be provided by such Department before submitting either (a) construction plans for 1st Plan Check to the City, or (b) application for a building permit for the work involved in the subject project, but under no circumstance more than one (1) year following the date of this approval. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the Applicant complies with this condition.

1.4 In accordance with Development Agreement section 4(n), developer shall pay the City $250,000 to be used for public safety purposes.

1.5 To the full extent permitted by law, the applicant and property owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its employees, agents, and officials, from and against any liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, but not limited to, actual attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and court costs of any kind without restriction or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a consequence of, arising out of or in any way attributable to, actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part, the issuance of this approval, or the activities conducted pursuant to this approval. Applicant and property owner shall pay such obligations as they are incurred by City, its employees, agents, and officials, and in the event of any claim or lawsuit, shall submit a deposit in such amount as the City reasonably determines necessary to protect the City from exposure to fees, costs or liability with respect to such claim or lawsuit.

CC Resolution 26-14: Conditions of Approval February 24, 2026 Exhibit A 2
430392.1

1.6 Maintain a signed copy of this record (City Council Resolution 26-14 with this Exhibit A), a letter from the Planning and Community Preservation Department of the notice of approval of the Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02), and a copy of the executed Affidavit of Acceptance of Conditions required by Condition of Approval no. 1.3 that together grant the following entitlement(s):

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02):
 Pursuant to the provisions under section 17.60.041 (Design Review Permit) of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code effective as of the date the application for Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02) was received (May 8, 2025), the Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02) is issued for the construction of 42 single-family dwellings, a 3-acre city public park, and landscaping within 6 open space lots as presented to and approved by the City Council at its regular meeting of February 24, 2026.

Failure to provide valid, clean, and legible records whenever may be necessary, or as reasonably requested by the City, and under circumstances of force majeure causing loss of city records may nullify and void any grant of entitlement, approval of a discretionary permit, or issuance of a certificate described herein.

2.0 Planning Conditions:

2.1 Unless otherwise required by these conditions, the applicant, property owner, or successor(s) in interest shall construct the project in substantial conformance with all applications and supporting materials presented to the City Council and as may be modified by condition of approval on February 24, 2026. Inaccuracies and misrepresentations will be grounds for immediate revocation of the Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02).

2.2 In general, modifications to the project and supporting materials presented to and approved by the City Council by this resolution shall be subject to the granting of minor conditional use permit pursuant to Section 6.4 of The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan.

2.3.0 Plan Check or Application for Building Permit Submittal

2.3.1 Submit an application for a building permit and/or construction plans for 1st Plan Check within one (1) year of the date of this approval, or within one (1) year of, and only under circumstances due to force majeure more than eighteen (18) months following, the date of this approval submit a request to extend approval of this entitlement. Failure to do so will automatically (and may be without notice to the applicant, owner, or successor(s) in interest) constitute an abandonment of the entitlement, and shall render this approval null and void.

CC Resolution 26-14: Conditions of Approval February 24, 2026 Exhibit A 3
430392.1

2.3.2 This Resolution signed by the City Mayor and conditions of approval, a letter of approval from the Planning and Community Preservation Department, and a copy of the executed Affidavit of Acceptance of Conditions, as specified under Condition of Approval no. 1.3, shall be included in the submitted construction plans on an individual sheet or, when submittal of construction plans for review is not deemed necessary by the Building Official, shall be submitted together with the application for building permit. Failure to do so shall deem the review automatically incomplete and noncompliant and may be remedied by providing within or following the 2nd Plan Check Submittal compliance with this condition.

2.4.0 Conformance with The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan

2.4.1 Landscaping: The applicant shall include within the Rules and Regulations of the Homeowners Association and within Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions requirements to plant and maintain one (1) shade tree within the front yard of each home, intended to shade the front of the home and the sidewalk. This condition shall be in addition to the parkway tree planting plan as presented and approved by the City Council.

2.4.2 Materials, Colors, and Paint: Exterior cladding materials shall be limited to the approved materials for each style as shown on the approved plans, with no more than two major wall materials per façade. Final color selections shall be nonreflective and complementary as approved. All exposed metal fixtures shall be painted or finished to match the wall or trim color to the extent permitted by public utility providers. Materials changes shall occur at inside corners or clear visual breaks per Specific Plan §5.5.7(e–f).

2.4.3 Mechanical and Utility Screening: All mechanical equipment (condensers, pool heaters, etc.) shall be screened from view by walls or plantings. Utility meters and outlet panels shall be grouped and painted to blend with adjacent surfaces.

Gutters, downspouts, and scuppers shall be integrated into the architecture and painted to match the building.

2.4.4 Porch and Balcony Details: Covered entries and balconies shall be incorporated on street-facing elevations as shown; columns or pergolas must appear structurally supportive (no two-story faux columns). Porch depths and balcony setbacks shall meet or exceed the minimum dimensions in Specific Plan §5.5.9 to ensure pedestrian-friendly facades.

2.4.5 Fire Prevention: The applicant shall prepare, submit for City review and approval Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to all residential lots within the subdivision that require ongoing compliance with California law and regulations governing Zone 0 defensible space, as amended from time to time, including but not limited to Public Resources Code Section 4291 and any CC Resolution 26-14: Conditions of Approval February 24, 2026 Exhibit A 4
430392.1
applicable regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The homeowners’ association Rules and Regulations shall incorporate these Zone 0 requirements and establish procedures for inspection, notice of violation, corrective action, and enforcement. The CC&Rs and Rules and Regulations shall not be amended in any manner that would conflict with or reduce compliance with state Zone 0 defensible space requirements without prior City review and approval.

2.4.6 Lot 1 and Lot 9 Building Elevation Differentiation: The same exterior materials and colors scheme shall not be used on Lot 1 and Lot 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of Lot 1 and Lot 9, the applicant shall clearly identify on the construction plans the selected exterior materials and colors scheme consistent with the approved design review permit application materials. (end of conditions)
1 430392.1

PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 26-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (DRP 25-02) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 42-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, LANDSCAPING IN 6 OPEN SPACE LOTS AND LANDSCAPING OF ONE CITY PUBLIC PARK AT 700 NORTH SUNNYSIDE AVENUE

WHEREAS, an application for a Design Review Permit was filed by:

WHEREAS, the new applicant for purposes of this Design Review Permit is:

Toll West Coast LLC
1140 Virginia Road
Fort Washington, PA 19034
ATTACHMENT 2
2 430392.1
WHEREAS, the Design Review Permit can be described as:

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the evidence received at the hearing, and for the reasons discussed by the Planning Commission at said hearing, Planning Commission now finds as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

In accordance, the Planning Commission finds substantial basis for approval of the Design Review Permit based on the following facts.

1. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, zoning code and any applicable design standards.

The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Zoning Code, and all applicable design standards, including the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan and its adopted architectural design guidelines. The Specific Plan establishes the zoning and design guidelines for the site, including the requirement that each PC Resolution 26-01 January 15, 2026
3 430392.1
home’s style be selected from one of four approved styles. Conditions of Approval nos. 2.4.2 through 2.4.4 ensure that development of the Project remains consistent with the design standards of the Specific Plan. The Project’s Park improvements and landscaping adhere to the development and design standards of the Specific Plan and are uses permitted by and consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Condition of Approval no. 2.4.1 ensures that the Project’s landscaping remain consistent with the development and design standards of the Specific Plan and comply with the Sierra Madre Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Therefore, the Project satisfies all applicable land‐use, development, and design requirements established in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan and its design guidelines. For architecture, the Project adheres to the Specific Plan’s design standards and the intent of the City’s design review criteria through the following characteristics:
• Building Mass, Form, Scale, and Articulation. The Specific Plan requires that building mass and form be consistent with the chosen architectural style. Each house design employs forms and roof heights appropriate to its style, and no two adjacent homes use identical façades. Roof massing is varied through parapets, hips, and gables, and most elevations break up larger volumes into smaller components. Primary façades include articulation and fenestration to avoid monotony; many homes incorporate second‐story setbacks, intermediate roof offsets, and wall plane changes. These design strategies fulfill the Specific Plan’s articulation requirements of applying multiple listed techniques per façade, while oversized or disproportional elements such as two‐story faux columns are generally avoided.
• Roof Treatment. Roof forms vary within each architectural style and are articulated with changes in height, slope direction, and multiple roof planes. For example, Modern homes use flat roofs with parapets and clerestory bands; Craftsman homes have low gabled roofs; Spanish homes employ low hip roofs; and Farmhouse homes feature front gables with overhanging eaves. Materials including cementitious wood shakes, standing-seam metal, and concrete tile are matched to each style, with eave lines, fascia, and dormers applied consistently on all elevations. Collectively, these roof design elements provide variation and interest and reinforce separation of masses, consistent with the Specific Plan’s roof design standards.
• Windows and Doors. Window placement and proportions have been tailored to each style, with frames, shutters, and hardware proportionate and consistent across all elevations. The plans contain balanced window groupings and sizes appropriate to the style. Primary entry doors are prominent on front façades and typically sheltered by porches or overhangs. Door surrounds and hardware reflect the selected style, and entry openings are scaled to the building, avoiding oversized portals. These treatments fulfill the Specific Plan’s standards for balanced and style-appropriate window and door design. • Exterior Materials and Colors. The Project’s material palette follows the guideline limiting façades to no more than two primary materials per façade.

Wall claddings include stucco, wood or fiber-cement lap siding, stone veneer, PC Resolution 26-01 January 15, 2026
4 430392.1
and board-and-batten siding, with trim and accents in complementary colors.

No prohibited materials such as plain plywood, corrugated metal, or reflective surfaces are used. Color palettes are subdued and appropriate to each style.

All finishes are non-reflective and durable, and transitions in materials generally occur at inside corners or changes in plane, consistent with design guidelines.

These measures satisfy the Specific Plan’s requirements for utility integration and screening.
• Balconies, Porches, and Porticos. Covered entries, porches, or balconies are incorporated consistent with each architectural style and are scaled appropriately to the building mass. Craftsman homes include tapered columns on stone bases; Farmhouse homes have simple square posts and open porches; and Modern homes use flat metal canopies. Porch and balcony elements are integrated into façades through roof overhangs and railings, providing articulation and contributing to a pedestrian-oriented streetscape in accordance with design standards.

2. The proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the use, possession and enjoyment of surrounding and adjacent properties.

The homes are designed and sited so as not to unreasonably interfere with the use, possession or enjoyment of surrounding properties. The 42 detached homes are of single‐family scale and are separated by private drives and open space. The development transitions to adjacent neighborhoods at modest heights and densities, and landscaping (including fuel‐modification planting) further buffers views between properties. The Project conforms with the Good Neighbor Plan contained within the Specific Plan as demonstrated through an additional 20-foot buffer distance provided between homes on the west side of Sunnyside Avenue and homes adjacent to the west of the development site. No evidence shows undue loss of privacy, overshadowing, or noise beyond that normally expected in a residential community.

3. The height, bulk, scale, mass and siting of the proposed project is compatible with the existing neighborhood, landforms and surroundings.

The massing, form and height of each proposed home have been designed to be compatible with the existing foothill village context. All homes are limited in height per the Specific Plan, and building articulations, such as second‐story step‐backs and roof variations, help reduce the visual bulk. The overall site is a gently graded PC Resolution 26-01 January 15, 2026
5 430392.1
former institutional site; homes generally step down the natural slope. The spacing of buildings, varied rooflines, and modest floor‐to‐floor heights help the Project reflect the scale of Sierra Madre’s neighborhoods. No building is so large or tall as to visually dominate the site or the skyline; thus the project “does not visually overpower or dominate the neighborhood.”

5. The proposed project neither unreasonably interferes with public views or the views and privacy of neighbors, produces unreasonable noise levels, nor causes material adverse impacts.

The project preserves key public views toward the mountains and does not unduly impair existing sightlines. Because homes are modest in height and set back or step‐down from the ridgeline, public vistas across open space and through the site to Bailey Canyon Park remain largely intact. Likewise, the privacy of neighboring residents is respected by orienting balconies and windows away from proximate existing homes, as guided by the Specific Plan. The project does not introduce noise or lighting impacts beyond standard residential use, which are mitigated through strategic placement of structural or plant screening techniques.

Common features such as similar porch depths, column profiles, and material palettes (e.g. use of painted wood trim and stucco or siding) tie the neighborhoods together. The grid layout and uniform setbacks further harmonize the varied PC Resolution 26-01 January 15, 2026
6 430392.1
architecture. Thus, the mix of Contemporary Modern, Spanish, Craftsman and Farmhouse homes is compatible with itself and with the adjacent retreat center and neighborhoods, as the Specific Plan envisions.

The project is not seeking additional height beyond standards, but each style is represented faithfully per Specific development and design standards and guidelines. All elevations of each home use consistent details appropriate to the style. For example, Spanish Revival homes feature stucco walls and low‐pitched clay tile roofs; Craftsman homes have gabled porches, tapered wood columns, and horizontal lap siding; Farmhouse homes show board‐and‐batten or clapboard siding with simple gables; and Modern homes use streamlined forms, flat or shallow roofs, and large fixed windows. These elements implement the character‐ defining features of each style. Thus, the project “adheres to the norms” of the selected styles and carries them through on all elevations.

8. For proposed projects that require discretionary review due to exceeding size thresholds (pursuant to subsections 17.20.027(C), 17.30.045(B),

17.28.070(A)1 or similar), that the proposed is a superior project that would enhance its neighborhood and exhibit exceptional design through a combination of most, if not all, of the following:

This finding does not apply because the Project does not exceed any size threshold established by the Specific Plan.

SECTION 3. Environmental Exemption. The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Section 15182(c) Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1, 1980, a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that specific plan is exempt from CEQA if the project meets the requirements of this section. The Project including residential planned unit developments that are undertaken consistent with the Specific Plan are exempt from CEQA, regardless of their location. However, the exemption requires review to ensure that the project would not create any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously disclosed in the original environmental document, as described in Guidelines §15162.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof or exhibit hereto is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof or exhibit thereto. The Planning Commission hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, PC Resolution 26-01 January 15, 2026
7 430392.1
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraph, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION 5. Certification. The Director of Planning and Community Preservation shall attest to the passage and adoption of this Resolution by the Planning Commission and shall cause the same to be listed in the records of the City.

SECTION 6. The Planning Commission conditionally grants approval and issues DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT 25-02, subject to the attached conditions included in this resolution as Exhibit A.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED the 15th day of January 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Denison, Vice Chair Simcock, and Commissioners Brennan and Yoo NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT: Commissioner Moran
________________________
Thomas Denison, Chair
Sierra Madre Planning Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Sierra Madre, California, at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of January 2026.

Clare Lin, Director
Planning and Community Preservation Department
1 430392.1
430392.1

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT 25-02 (DRP 25-02)
The applicant, property owner, or successor(s) in interest shall meet the following conditions:

1.0 General Conditions:

1.2 Comply with all applicable provisions of Federal, State, and Los Angeles County law and regulations, including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act.

1.4 In accordance with Development Agreement section 4(n), developer shall pay the City $250,000 to be used for public safety purposes.

PC Resolution 26-01: Conditions of Approval January 15, 2026 Exhibit A 2
430392.1

1.6 Maintain a signed copy of this record (Planning Commission Resolution 26-01 with this Exhibit A), a letter from the Planning and Community Preservation Department of the notice of approval of the Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02), and a copy of the executed Affidavit of Acceptance of Conditions required by Condition of Approval no. 1.3 that together grant the following entitlement(s):

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02):
• Pursuant to the provisions under section 17.60.041 (Design Review Permit) of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code effective as of the date the application for Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02) was received (May 8, 2025), the Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02) is issued for the construction of 42 single-family dwellings, a 3-acre city public park, and landscaping within 6 open space lots as presented to and approved by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of January 15, 2026.

2.0 Planning Conditions:

2.1 Unless otherwise required by these conditions, the applicant, property owner, or successor(s) in interest shall construct the project in substantial conformance with all applications and supporting materials presented to the Planning Commission and as may be modified by condition of approval on January 15, 2026.

Inaccuracies and misrepresentations will be grounds for immediate revocation of the Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02).

2.2 In general, modifications to the project and supporting materials presented to and approved by the Planning Commission by this resolution shall be subject to the granting of minor conditional use permit pursuant to Section 6.4 of The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan.

2.3.0 Plan Check or Application for Building Permit Submittal

PC Resolution 26-01: Conditions of Approval January 15, 2026 Exhibit A 3
430392.1

2.3.2 This Resolution signed by both the Planning Commission Chair and Director of Planning and Community Preservation and conditions of approval, a letter of approval from the Planning and Community Preservation Department, and a copy of the executed Affidavit of Acceptance of Conditions, as specified under Condition of Approval no. 1.3, shall be included in the submitted construction plans on an individual sheet or, when submittal of construction plans for review is not deemed necessary by the Building Official, shall be submitted together with the application for building permit. Failure to do so shall deem the review automatically incomplete and noncompliant and may be remedied by providing within or following the 2nd Plan Check Submittal compliance with this condition.

2.4.0 Conformance with The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan

2.4.2 Materials, Colors, and Paint: Exterior cladding materials shall be limited to the approved materials for each style as shown on the approved plans, with no more than two major wall materials per façade. Final color selections shall be non‐ reflective and complementary as approved. All exposed metal fixtures shall be painted or finished to match the wall or trim color to the extent permitted by public utility providers. Materials changes shall occur at inside corners or clear visual breaks per Specific Plan §5.5.7(e–f).

Gutters, downspouts, and scuppers shall be integrated into the architecture and painted to match the building.

2.4.4 Porch and Balcony Details: Covered entries and balconies shall be incorporated on street‐facing elevations as shown; columns or pergolas must appear structurally supportive (no two‐story faux columns). Porch depths and balcony setbacks shall meet or exceed the minimum dimensions in Specific Plan §5.5.9 to ensure pedestrian‐friendly facades.

2.4.5 Fire Prevention: The applicant shall prepare, submit for City review and approval Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to all residential lots within the subdivision that require ongoing compliance with California law and regulations governing Zone 0 defensible space, as amended from time to time, PC Resolution 26-01: Conditions of Approval January 15, 2026 Exhibit A 4
430392.1
including but not limited to Public Resources Code Section 4291 and any applicable regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

CITY OF

SIERRA MADRE STAFF REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION
430628.1
DATE: January 15, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Clare Lin, Director of Planning and Community Preservation By: Joshua Wolf, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02), Implementing The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan, for the Construction of Forty-Two (42) Detached SingleFamily Dwellings

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony, and approve with modifications the application for Design Review Permit 25-02 (“DRP 25-02”), pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 26-01 and conditions of approval that modify the project as presented.

ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may:

1. Approve DRP 25-02 as presented, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 26-01 and conditions of approval;

2. Approve with modifications DRP 25-02, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 26-01 and conditions of approval as may be modified;

3. Deny DRP 25-02, identifying findings supporting the Planning Commission’s denial; or

4. Continue the public hearing and provide direction to staff and the applicant.

SUMMARY
The applicant, Toll West Coast LLC, (“Applicant”) is requesting that the Planning Commission consider granting an entitlement to construct 42 detached single-family dwellings, 6 open space parcels, and one city public park (“Project”) through DRP 25-02, as required by Section 6.2.2 of The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”).

BACKGROUND
The Congregation of the Passion, Mater Dolorosa Community, a California charitable corporation, operates a 90-guest retreat center in Sierra Madre (“Mater Dolorosa”). Mater Dolorosa owns the property ATTACHMENT 3
Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 2 of 23 ends

430628.1
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 5761-002-008) located at 700 North Sunnyside Avenue, Sierra Madre, CA 91024 (“Property”). In partnership with NUWI Sierra Madre, LLC (“Applicant”), Mater Dolorosa and the Applicant desire to construct up to 42 detached single-family dwellings on approximately 17.30 acres of its property. The proposed “Project” is referred to as “The Meadows at Bailey Canyon.” The Project includes the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”), which identifies approximately 9.19 acres of the 17.30-acre Project site to be developed for single-family residential uses;

3.68 acres developed as roadway; and approximately 3.39 acres developed as open space, which includes a 3.04-acre city public park, and a 1.04 acre landscaped buffer at the northern portion of the Project site.

The Project site is located north of the intersection of North Sunnyside Avenue and Fairview Avenue.

Primary access to the Project site is provided via North Sunnyside and secondary access is West Carter Avenue.

Aerial View ca. 2024 of the Project Site (outlined and shaded) and surrounding area.

On September 20, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 22-58, approving a lot line adjustment, approving a General Plan Land Use Map amendment, and certifying an Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopting CEQA Findings for the Project. On September 27, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1461, adopting the Specific Plan, approving a zoning map amendment, and approving the Development Agreement.

An ordinance usually takes effect within 30 days after its adoption. However, referendum proponents succeeded in collecting enough signatures to qualify for a ballot measure to referend Ordinance No. 1461. As a result, Ordinance No. 1461 did not take effect until the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-41 on May 23, 2023, certifying the results of the special election rejecting the referendum.

Since the Planning Commission’s most recent review action on the development, progress was made implementing the development. Waiting for the results of the special election to be certified and

PASADENA

THE MEADOWS AT

BAILEY CANYON

PROJECT SITE
Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 3 of 23 ends

430628.1
following the recommendation of the Planning Commission, Tentative Tract Map 22-01, which include Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 83966, was approved by City Council on February 27, 2024, granting the subdivision of the 17-acre site to 42 single-family residential lots, 6 open space lots, and one city public park and providing approximately 3.68 acres of land as dedicated public right-of-way (roadways and sidewalks).

Tentative Tract Map 22-01 is approved subject to conditions which must be met within certain time limits. Building permits may be issued for construction work and improvements required by the conditions of the tentative tract map’s approval, including construction of boundary walls and fencing, installation of temporary sound walls, demolition of existing improvements, grading activities (movement and compaction of earth), and construction of public (roadway, stormwater, utility, etc.) infrastructure.

Before any building permit is issued, the Applicant must meet compliance with modern Building and Safety requirements established by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, including the California Building Standards Code, California Fire Code, California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, California Energy Code, and California Green Building Standards Code, as determined by the City’s Building Official through detailed plan review conducted by qualified City staff. Additionally, any activities permitted this way are subject to agency and professional oversight of the Applicant’s environmental responsibilities as conditioned by the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, including measures to mitigate impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources.

On May 22, 2024, the organization Protect Sierra Madre filed a writ of mandate seeking to overturn the City Council’s approval of Resolution 24-12, including Tentative Tract Map 22-01 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 83966 regarding The Meadows Project. On January 27, 2025, the superior court published an order denying Protect Sierra Madre’s petition for writ of mandate. On May 1, 2025, Protect Sierra Madre appealed the superior court’s decision. In November 2025, Protect Sierra Madre and Real Party in Interest NUWI-SIERRA MADRE, LLC agreed to a confidential settlement agreement to resolve the appeal. On November 20, 2025, Protect Sierra Madre filed a request for dismissal of appeal, and the appeal was dismissed on December 10, 2025.

The NUWI-Sierra Madre LLC submitted DRP 25-02 on May 27, 2025, and it was deemed complete on December 22, 2025, after being revised twice as received on October 2 and December 10, 2025, in response to City Staff review. On November 19, 2025, the City approved an Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement between NUWI-Sierra Madre LLC and Toll West Coast LLC. Thus, Toll West Coast LLC is the current applicant.

A design review permit is a discretionary permit, or entitlement, required by the Sierra Madre Zoning Code and required to ensure that applicable projects incorporate good design principles and are compatible with their neighborhood and natural surroundings. Projects subject to a design review permit must be granted one prior to approval and issuance of any building permit within the scope of its application.

In the case of this Project, no building permit may be issued for the construction of any singlefamily dwelling or any landscaping, including the city public park, until the design review permit is Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 4 of 23 ends

430628.1
approved. In addition, approval and issuance of any building permit for this Project is subject to compliance with applicable laws, as mentioned above, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and measures to mitigate impacts on the environment as incorporated within the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

The application includes the full set of architectural plans applicable to all 42 single-family dwellings and the full set of landscape plans applicable to the Project site including the 6 open space parcels, the city public park, and the landscaped portions of the residential lots. The property is zoned R1 One-family Residence with a land use designation of Residential Low Density. The design review permit meets the minimum requirements based on the analysis of the Specific Plan and Sierra Madre Zoning Code.

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION
As specified under section 6.2.2 (Design Review) of the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission shall review the project in its entirety and make a substantial conformance determination for the full set of architectural plans including the conceptual grading plan included in the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission shall review the application to ensure the proposed development is consistent with, and serves to implement, the goals, policies, standards, and design guidelines of the Specific Plan.

The Project is subject to the following requirements:
• State Law (including the Housing Accountability Act and the Housing Crisis Act); • The Development Agreement;
• The Specific Plan; and
• Title 17 (Zoning) of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code.

Each requirement is discussed below in turn.

State Law and Statutory Constraints
Five Hearings Rule:

Government Code Section 65905.5, subdivision (a), states:

Notwithstanding any other law, if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, after the application is deemed complete, a city, county, or city and county shall not conduct more than five hearings pursuant to Section 65905, or any other law, ordinance, or regulation requiring a public hearing in connection with the approval of that housing development project. If the city, county, or city and county continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under this section. The city, county, or city and county shall consider and either approve or disapprove the application at any of the five hearings allowed under this section consistent with the applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920)).

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 5 of 23 ends

430628.1
The Meadows Project is a “housing development project.” DRP 25-02 is a discretionary approval “in connection with the approval of that housing development project.” Staff determined DRP 25-02 is a complete application. Therefore, the City Council and Planning Commission “shall not conduct more than five hearings” to approve or disapprove DRP 25-02 under Section 65905.5.

Limited Discretion Under the Housing Accountability Act:

Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (j)(1), states:

When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density
The Housing Accountability Act limits the City Council and Planning Commission’s options with respect to DRP 25-02. If the Planning Commission agrees with staff’s determination that DRP 25-02 “complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria,” then the Planning Commission cannot disapprove DRP 25-02 or impose a condition that would lower the proposed density.

If the Planning Commission is inclined to disapprove DRP 25-02 or reduce the project’s density, it will need to find that DRP 25-02 has a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” and there is no method to “satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.” Under Section 65589.5, non-objective standards, as that term is defined under the Housing Accountability Act, cannot be used to disapprove DRP 25-02 or reduce the Project’s density.

Development Agreement Conditions
Subsequent Discretionary Permit Approvals:

The Development Agreement contemplates the following three subsequent discretionary approvals required to advance the Project:
• a subdivision map application submitted by the Congregation to create the Open Space Configuration (DA § 3(a));
Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 6 of 23 ends

430628.1
• a subdivision map application submitted by NUWI-Sierra Madre LLC to subdivide the lots consistent with The Meadows Specific Plan (DA § 4(a)(i)); • a design review permit application submitted by NUWI-Sierra Madre LLC to design the units consistent with The Meadows Specific Plan (DA § 4(a)(ii)); The first item, an application for Tentative Parcel Map 24-01 to create the Open Space Configuration was approved by City Council on April 22, 2025. For the second item and as mentioned above, an application for Tentative Tract Map 22-01 to subdivide the lots consistent with the Specific Plan was approved by City Council on February 27, 2024. The discretionary approval before the Planning Commission only deals with the third item — a design review permit application submitted by NUWI-Sierra Madre LLC to design the units consistent with the Specific Plan (DA § 4(a)(ii)).

Findings for the Design Review Permit
The Development Agreement does not establish the findings that need to be made to approve or disapprove a design review permit. However, it does contemplate certain conditions concurrent with or prior to issuance of a permit. Section 4(n) of the Development Agreement states, “Upon approval of a Tentative Tract Map pursuant to Section 4(a)(i) and issuance of a Design Review Permit pursuant to Section 4(a)(ii), Developer shall pay the City $250,000 to be used for public safety purposes.” Section 4(a)(iii) of the Development Agreement states, “Neither the Tentative Tract Map nor the Design Review Permit may be approved if the Developer is found to be in default in accordance with Section 12.” Section 12 of the Development Agreement lays out the procedure for providing notice to a party of a default of a condition required under the Development Agreement. To date, no party has provided the other with a notice of default.

The Specific Plan
The Specific Plan provides the allowable land uses, zoning and development regulations, design guidelines, and implementation procedures for the property within the boundary of the Specific Plan. The regulations contained within the Specific Plan are in addition to those set forth in the planning, zoning, and subdivision provisions of the SMMC, and do not convey any rights not otherwise granted under the provisions and procedures contained in the SMMC or other ordinances, except as specifically provided for herein. Whenever the Specific Plan contains provisions that establish regulations, including, but not limited to, uses, densities, intensities, and height, floor area, lot area and coverage, setback, parking, open space, and landscaping requirements, which are different from, or more restrictive or permissive than would be allowed pursuant to the provisions of the SMMC, the Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede the applicable provisions of the SMMC. The Specific Plan provides the following definitions for Design Standards and Design Guidelines:
• Design Standards are expressed by the word “shall” to describe mandatory requirements.

Although non-quantifiable (e.g., not described by a number, such as a quantity, dimension, or size, etc.), the Design Standards address qualitative design conditions that are deemed necessary in upholding the Vision and Guiding Principles.

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 7 of 23 ends

430628.1
• Design Guidelines are expressed by the word “should” to describe recommendations that are encouraged where feasible but are not mandatory. Although non-quantifiable, the Design Guidelines address qualitative design conditions based on best design practices.

Section 6.2 of the Specific Plan states the following:
“Before a permit of any type is granted, the developer shall demonstrate, to the reasonable satisfaction of the reviewing authority, that the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan and all applicable design standards. Where the Specific Plan development regulations and design guidelines are silent, the applicable development regulations and design guidelines contained within the Sierra Madre Municipal Code (SMMC) shall apply. The design guidelines are intended to be flexible while establishing basic evaluation criteria for review by the City of developer projects during design review.”
Sections 3.8 (Development Standards) and 5 (Design Standards and Guidelines) of the Specific Plan include design standards applicable to the review of DRP 25-02. Where the Specific Plan is silent on a development standard, the Sierra Madre Municipal Code controls.

Section 6.2.2 of the Specific Plan states the following:
“The proposed development of the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City’s Design Review process and shall be processed concurrently with the project’s Tentative Tract Map. The Planning Commission shall review the project in its entirety and make a substantial conformance determination for the full set of architectural plans including the conceptual grading plan included in the Specific Plan. The Design Review application shall include project elevations, floorplans, a color palette, materials boards, landscape plan, park plan, and 3-D computer renderings depicting the development from various vantage points within the project site, including views form the community park and street intersections. The Planning Commission shall review the application to ensure the proposed development is consistent with, and serves to implement, the goals, policies, standards, and design guidelines of the Specific Plan. No additional plans, materials, studies, environmental review, or technical analyses shall be required except as provided in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Meadow Specific Plan or as otherwise required by law.” The City’s Design Review process is established under Section 17.60.041 of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code, which includes the findings that need to be made to approve or disapprove a design review permit. City staff determined DRP 25-02 to be a complete application in accordance with Specific Plan Section 6.2.2 and determined notification to the public be provided in accordance with the City’s Design Review process.

Title 17 – Zoning of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code
Definitions
The Specific Plan references the meaning of “gross floor area” as established by Section 17.20.015 of the SMMC and provides nuanced and limited exceptions for the gross floor area computations. Similarly, the Specific Plan references the definition of “height” to the SMMC with the modification that the lowest Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 8 of 23 ends

430628.1
point of height be measured from finished grade rather than pre-existing grade. All other definitions in Sections 17.20.015 and 17.08.020 of the SMMC apply.

Site Development Standards
The Specific Plan supersedes the SMMC development standards regarding minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage, maximum floor area, building height, building setbacks, projections into required setbacks, landscaping requirements, driveway and parking standards, fencing and walls, lighting standards, swimming pools, and signs. The SMMC development standard for angle plane height applies to a designated 14 lots among the 42 total lots. The remaining development standard applied by the SMMC is for the minimum dwelling width.

ANALYSIS – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This section of this Staff Report provides analysis of the Project’s requirements to meet development standards established by the Specific Plan and wherever may be applicable by the SMMC.

Analysis of Design Standards is provided in the next section of this Staff Report. The applicant has provided a detailed consistency review matrix breaking down each of the Specific Plan’s development standards and explaining how the Project meets each requirement, included in this Staff Report as Table 1 of Attachment 2.

Proposed in DRP 25-05 is the construction of 42 single-family dwellings, one located at each residential lot within Tract Map No. 83966, 6 open space parcels of maintained landscaped areas and one city public park. All proposed uses are consistent with Specific Plan Sections 3.8.4(A)(i) and 3.8.4(B). Except vehicle parking incidental to the primary one-family residential use, secondary uses for residential lots are not proposed in DRP 25-02. The proposed city public park includes secondary uses allowed under Specific Plan Section 3.8.4(B)(ii).

Residential development proposed in DRP 25-02 consists of three floor plan variants and four distinct architectural styles which are identified in the architectural plans first by its Plan number then by the correlated style (example: Lot 3 is Plan 3C, a two-story home with Craftsman architectural style).

Style Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3
A. Modern
B. Spanish
C. Craftsman
D. Farmhouse
One Story
2,483 SF (avg. livable)
3 to 4 Bedrooms

3.5 to 4 Bathrooms
Attached 2 Car Garage
Two Stories
3,104 SF (avg. livable)
4 Bedrooms

3.5 Bathrooms
Attached 2 or 3 Car Garage
Two Stories
3,094 SF (avg. livable)
4 to 5 Bedrooms

3.5 to 4 Bathrooms
Attached 2 or 3 Car Garage
The typical standard of floor plan configuration for these homes is orientation with the garage on the right-hand side of the building façade. Plans that have been mirrored are indicated with an “R” appended to the plan identifier (example: Lot 19 is Plan 2AR because its garage is oriented on the left-hand side of the building façade). Single-story dwellings are located on residential lots predetermined by the Specific Plan (Lots 10, 11, 14, 21, 22, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 42) as illustrated in Figure 1.

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 9 of 23 ends

430628.1
Figure 1
Lot configuration and size was reviewed in the approved Tentative Tract Map 22-01 application.

DRP 25-02 is substantially consistent with the lot configuration approved in Tentative Tract Map 22-02 and maintains compliance with minimum lot area requirements (Specific Plan Section 3.8.7(A)(i)) where the smallest lot within the development is Lot 13 at 7,802 square feet. Overall, the average residential lot area in the development is 9,533 square feet.

Lot coverage requirements within the Specific Plan allow a maximum of 50% of the lot area to be covered by buildings, including covered porches and patios (Specific Plan Section 3.8.7(A)(ii)). All residential development within the Project meets compliance with lot coverage where the most lot coverage occurs on Lot 14 at 38.7% which is also in compliance with SMMC §17.20.120, allowing a maximum of 40% of the lot to be covered. All residences include a covered front porch or entrance, but none of the residences include a fully covered patio. Overall, the development meets an average 29.3% lot coverage.

Floor area requirements for the development refer to the SMMC definition of “gross floor area” with modifications to the double computation for areas with a double-height volume, with exception provided to entrance areas, foyers, and areas connected to staircases provided those areas do not exceed 180 square feet. Simplified, floor area is a measure of a building’s square footage measured from exterior side of walls wherever a floor is covered by a solid roof or story above. For further clarification, floor area Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 10 of 23 ends

430628.1
includes non-habitable areas such as garages, carports, and patios if they are covered by a solid roof. The Specific Plan establishes a maximum floor area for any individual residential lot of 3,775 square feet and a maximum average floor area for the overall development of 3,500 square feet. As proposed, DRP 25-02 complies with floor area standards where the maximum floor area is 3,773 square feet (Plan 2B, occurring on Lots 8 and 24) and the average floor area for the overall development is 3,500 square feet.

The Specific Plan entirely supersedes building setbacks otherwise required by the SMMC. As part of the Specific Plan’s Good Neighbor Plan, rear yard setbacks for primary and accessory buildings west of Sunnyside Avenue are greater than the SMMC standard (15 feet) by an additional 20 feet, providing a minimum 35-foot buffer between buildings west of Sunnyside Avenue and the western Project boundary.

Primary and accessory buildings east of Sunnyside Avenue must meet a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. Side yard setbacks for all lots within the development, regardless of lot width, require a minimum of 5 feet on either side. Front yard setbacks within the development requires a minimum 15 feet and more restrictively at 20 feet for garages. The site plan included in DRP 25-02 demonstrates that all residential buildings within the development meet or exceed minimum requirements for building setbacks.

Certain architectural features are permitted to project within required setbacks by both the Specific Plan and the SMMC. Similar to the SMMC, the Specific Plan permits eaves, fireplace masonry, and other nonfloor area architectural design features to encroach into any of the required setbacks by no more than 24 inches which provides a clearance of at least 3 feet within side yards for emergency access. Also similar to the SMMC, the Specific Plan permits within the required front yard setback, the projection of a nonhabitable covered front porch up to 6 feet within the required front yard setback but in no case closer than 10 feet to the front property line. Eight lots within the development propose projections into required setbacks as permitted:
• Lot 11: a front porch meets a 13.3-foot front yard setback; • Lot 14: a front porch meets a 14.1-foot front yard setback and a double-framed exterior wall projects 2.4 inches into a 5-foot side yard setback;
• Lot 22: a front porch meets a 14-foot front yard setback; • Lot 25: a front porch meets a 13.4-foot front yard setback; • Lot 32: a front porch meets a 12.7-foot front yard setback; • Lot 35: a front porch meets a 12.6-foot front yard setback; • Lot 37: a front porch meets a 13.6-foot front yard setback; and • Lot 42: a front porch meets a 14-foot front yard setback.

Building height requirements reference the SMMC maximum of 25 feet but modify the method of measuring such that the lowest point of measure is taken from the finished grade level rather than the pre-existing grade level. The method for finding the highest point of measure is the same as the SMMC:
to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to a point one-third the height of a pitched or hipped roof. The two-story Modern style homes (plans 2A and 3A) have the tallest building height at 24 feet and 11 inches. Overall, across all floor plans and styles, the average building height in the development is 21 feet and six inches.

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 11 of 23 ends

430628.1
Building height includes a secondary requirement called Angular Plane Height which regulates bulk and mass of second story volumes located close to minimum yard setbacks. The location and orientation of the angular plane is determined starting at the grade point elevation of a property line, then moving vertically upward 10 feet and projecting a plane in toward the property line at a 45-degree angle. With exception to certain architectural features, no portion of a building may project above the angular plan. The Specific Plan places this requirements only to a designated 14 lots within the development: Lot 1 (Plan 3D), Lot 8 (Plan 2B), Lot 10 (Plan 1B), Lot 11 (Plan 1D), Lot 14 (Plan 1B), Lot 21 (Plan 1A), Lot 22 (Plan 1C), Lot 31 (Plan 1B), Lot 32 (Plan 1D), Lot 34 (Plan 1A), Lot 35 (Plan 1C), Lot 36 (Plan 1B), Lot 37 (Plan 1D), and Lot 42 (Plan 1C). Therefore, plans 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2B, and 3D are required to comply with the Angular Plane Height requirement.

Simple geometric computation of the 45-degree angle and the minimum setback occurring at the side yard of 5 feet resulting in the height of the angle plane at the 5-foot setback line being 15 feet. All onestory buildings in DRP 25-02 are within a 15-foot building height where they meet the 5-foot setback.

However, one-story buildings have either stepped flat roofs or sloped roofs that vary the building height.

The angle plane of the angular plane height requirement continues through the entire lot until it meets the angle plane of the other side. All one-story buildings do not encroach beyond the angle plane at any point. Therefore, comply with the angular plane height requirement.

Plan 2B’s compliance with the angular plane height requirement is specific to Lot 8 where the side yard setbacks provided exceed the minimum requirements. At the south side, an 18-foot setback is provided, where at the point the grade elevation is the same as the pad elevation. At the north side, a 30.5-foot setback is provided, where at that point the grade elevation is raised from the building pad elevation by approximately 7 feet. Again, applying the simple geometric computation of the 45-degree angle plane, the specific setback distances, and height modifiers, Plan 2B at Lot 8 meets compliance with the angular plane height requirement; angular plane height and Plan 2B do not apply to any other lot within the development.

Lastly, Plan 3D’s compliance with the angular plane height requirement is specific to Lot 1 where the side yard setbacks provided exceed the minimum requirements. At the south side, a 15.6-foot setback is provided, where at the point of grade elevation is the same as the pad elevation. At the north side, a 21- foot setback is provided, where at that point the grade elevation is raised from the building pad elevation by approximately 7 feet. Again, applying the simple geometric computation of the 45-degree angle plane, the specific setback distances, and the height modifiers, Plan 3D at Lot 1 meets compliance with the angular plane height requirement; angular plane height and Plan 3D do not apply to any other lot within the development.

Unique to the Specific Plan, the development must meet minimum and maximum thresholds for a Unit Mix requirement. A minimum of 25% of the units within the development must be Plan 1 of any style; no more than 35% of the units within the development may be Plan 2 of any style; and no more than 40% of the units within the development may be Plan 3 of any style. Twelve lots within the development (~30%) are designated for Plan 1 construction; fifteen lots (~35%) are designated for Plan 2; and 15 lots (~35%) are designated for Plan 3. This distribution meets and exceeds the Good Neighbor Plan and Site and Housing Plan of the Specific Plan where at least eleven Plan 1 homes are committed.

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 12 of 23 ends

430628.1
Development Standards of the Specific Plan require that all construction meet certain Fire Protection Criteria. As mentioned in a previous section of this Staff Report, following the approval and issuance of a design review permit for the development, approval and issuance of any building permit will be subject to local, county, and state laws, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, requirements to use the most current construction methods intended to mitigate wildfire exposure as required by Los Angeles County Fire Department, and local amendments established under Title 15 of the SMMC. DRP 25-02 includes a detailed window and door schedule, specifying that all glazing be tempered.

All materials provided in DRP 25-02 will be subject to compliance with all Fire Protection Criteria upon review by qualified City staff during plan check review initiated by the Applicant’s submittal of building permit applications. Also review for compliance with the Applicant’s Building Permit application, all landscaped areas within the Project site are subject to compliance with SMMC Chapter 8.36 (Hazardous Brush Clearance) and requirements for Fuel Modification by Zone, including Zone 0, established by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. DRP 25-02 includes landscape plans for all landscaped areas within the development including the city public park.

The Specific Plan requires that landscaping within the development area provide one shade tree within the front yard setback of each house for shading on the front of the house and sidewalk. Separately, the Specific Plan requires that trees be provided in the parkways along the street to provide shade and aesthetic value. Landscape Plans provided in DRP 25-02 lack planting plan detail within the front yard setback of each house to determine whether compliance with Specific Plan Section 3.8.7(A)(x)(b) is met.

However, the applicant’s consistency review matrix (Attachment 2, Table 1) states that a shade tree will be provided within the front yard of every home. To ensure that the project remains consistent with the Specific Plan development standards, staff recommends approval with the following condition:
 Rules and Regulations of the Homeowners Association and within Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions requirements shall include requirements to plant and maintain one (1) shade tree within the front yard of each home, intended to shade the front of the home and the sidewalk.

The applicant has provided unique plant palates complementary to each home style and compatible with the Sierra Madre Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 15.60) which does include various shade trees. Similar to the SMMC, the Specific Plan requires a minimum area of the front yard to be landscaped. However, unlike the SMMC, the Specific Plan’s requirements exclude the areas covered by a driveway and require a minimum of the remaining 40% front yard area to be landscaped. The applicant’s Consistency Review matrix provides that landscape coverage within front yards ranges from 55-59% though it could not be verified through review of the landscape plans provided in DRP 25-05. Irrigation plans provided as part of DRP 25-02 landscape plans demonstrate that the project site will incorporate water recycling systems and leverage graywater systems for residential units.

As mentioned above, vehicle parking is a permitted accessory use for residential lots within the development and is limited in use by reference to SMMC section 17.20.150 which prohibits the parking of vehicles within landscaped areas of the front yard and the repair, dismantling, or storage of vehicles in open areas with unobstructed public view (with certain permitted exceptions). Consistent with the SMMC, the Specific Plan requires that each home provides two parking spaces within a garage where each space is provided with a 10-foot by 20-foot clear floor area and a 7-foot vertically clear area. Each residential lot Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 13 of 23 ends

430628.1
is limited to one driveway, one curb cut, and one driveway apron. Site plans and floor plans provided within DRP 25-02 demonstrate that the Project meets or exceeds these standards.

For freestanding walls and fences, the Specific Plan includes a development standard that mirrors the SMMC. Maximum wall or fence height allowed is 6 feet except within the front yard area which is limited to 42 inches in height. Landscape plans provided with DRP 25-02 include landscape construction plans that detail the materials and layout of walls and fences throughout the development. These plans demonstrate that the development meets and exceeds these requirements by providing front yard fences or walls not exceeding 42 inches in height and elsewhere not exceeding 5 feet in height. Wall materials comprise of slump block with varying cap designs and fencing material is comprised of tube steel and cable railing. Corner lots on the east side of Sunnyside Avenue will include a Verdura plantable wall as part of the civil grading and soil retention system, also incorporated within the landscape plan. Generally, the front yards of homes are not enclosed by a 42-inch-tall fence. Rather, a fence or wall continues along the side property lines of each lot with reduced height where the front yard begins. Open front yards are consistent with Specific Plan section 3.8.7(A)(xii)(b), which includes a guideline to avoid a fortress appearance.

Lighting is sparingly used in the Project except to light roadways, public pathways and city public park areas and facilities. The architectural plans provided in DRP 25-02 include wall-mounted lighting for homes that are compliant with international Dark Sky guidelines and include attachable shield to ensure lighting remains within each property.

ANALYSIS – DESIGN STANDARDS
This section of this Staff Report provides analysis of the Project’s requirements to meet design standards established by the Specific Plan. Analysis and bases for making findings for approval of a design review permit are provided in the next section of this Staff Report. The applicant has provided a detailed consistency review matrix breaking down each of the Specific Plan’s design standards and guidelines and explaining how the Project meets each requirement, included in this Staff Report as Table 2 of Attachment

2. The Specific Plan stipulates design standards and design guidelines which are distinguished as requirements of the Project’s design, using the word “shall,” and suggestions to improve the Project’s design, using the word “should.”
Site Planning and Design
Building placement and orientation across the development is required by the Specific Plan to have visual connection with the street such that primary facades, door entries and porches are visible from the street. The Project site plan included in DRP 25-02 demonstrates that all 42 homes face the street and remain visible to the street through the avoidance of fencing or walls enclosing the front yards.

Garages shall not be a dominant feature enforced by setting the garage back behind the main building.

The Project site plan included in DRP 25-02 shows that all garages have a minimum setback of 20 feet, floor plans further demonstrate how garages are setback from the main building. Furthermore, garage doors are recessed 12 inches from the face of the garage consistent with design guidelines 5.4.2(c-b).

Architectural Design
Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 14 of 23 ends

430628.1
As mentioned in the previous section, DRP 25-02 is comprised of four architectural styles consistent with the Specific Plan: Modern, Spanish, Craftsman, and Farmhouse. Building elevation drawings are included in the architectural drawings of DRP 25-02 which include designs unique from one another and incorporating architectural styles and techniques consistent with one of the architectural styles; a combination of different styles is not utilized for any one building.

Modern Architectural Style
Massing and forms include clean, rectilinear volumes with flat or very low-sloped roofs. Building mass is expressed as stacked or interlocking boxes with minimal offsets. Garage volumes are wellintegrated and do not dominate the primary façade. These homes are appropriately scaled for Modern architecture as shown through strong horizontal emphases, controlled fenestration proportions, and minimal decorative elements. Articulation is expressed through the material contrast of smooth stucco, metal accents, and masonry veneer along with window composition rather than depth.

Roof forms are legible and intentional, emphasizing horizontality and cubic massing rather than competing with it. Windows are large, rectilinear, and predominantly flush with wall planes. Black window frames create strong contrast against light stucco finishes and grouped openings and horizontal proportions are consistent with modern design language. Entry doors are simple in form, often flush or minimally recessed, with limited ornamentation and emphasis given to quality of material and proportion rather than detailing. Exterior finishes primarily rely on smooth stucco material with selective use of masonry or metal accents. Material transitions are clean and deliberate rather than decorative while the color palette is restrained and neutral. Although wall-mounted utilities are not located on primary facades, they may be exposed to public view if not properly screened through the return of a property line wall or planting. Balconies are absent from primary facades, consistent with Modern precedent, and patios, where may be optionally included, are minimally detailed with focus on quality and proportions consistent with the Modern style.

Spanish Architectural Style
Massing is primarily rectilinear and is contemporary-forward with limited stepping or courtyarddriven forms typical of traditional Spanish architecture. Roofs utilize clay tile profiles, but underlying forms are simplified and modernized. Two-story volumes are substantial and read more as contemporary houses with Spanish cues rather than traditional Spanish Revival residences. The scale is mitigated through roof pitch and use of materials and color differentiating the first and second stories. Articulation is achieved through stucco wall planes, softened openings in select locations, and tile roofing and subtle entry emphasis. Overall, the Spanish architectural style is carried through its use of materials and color rather than through building mass and form.

Roofs utilize clay tile profiles, but include a low-profile, or flat, variant more akin to concrete tile; roof geometry remains simplified, with limited hips, valleys, or layered volumes typical of traditional Spanish Revival. Windows are generally rectangular, with limited or absent use of arched or deeply recessed openings. Darker frames express contemporary contrast rather than natural wood or bronze finishes that provide more subtlety in transition. Doors are simple and contemporary in detailing, with limited use of Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 15 of 23 ends

430628.1
heavy doors, arched surrounds, or ornamental ironwork. Stucco is the dominant exterior siding material, consistent with Spanish architecture, and the color palette remains contemporary with minimal warm or variegated tones. Like other plans in the project, wall-mounted utilities are not located on primary facades, but in some cases may be exposed to public view unless mitigated by the return of a property line wall or planted screening. Balconies are present in Plan 2B, but not in Plan 3B; balconies present express articulation related to the entry. However, the architectural expression is primarily contemporary in that traditional Spanish architectural elements like covered loggias or arcades are absent from the design and indoor-outdoor transition expressions are minimal.

Craftsman Architectural Style
Forms are boxier and taller than traditional Craftsman homes, especially in two-story variants.

Roofs introduce gables, but they are simplified and often truncated, serving more as visual identifiers than as dominant organizing elements. The overall scale exceeds that of classic Craftsman precedents and large second-story masses are partially mitigated by roof articulation and porch elements. This style provides articulation emphasized by porches, board-and-batten or lap-style siding, and masonry veneer accents.

Traditional Craftsman details such as brackets, rafter tails, and heavy trim are used minimally or absent.

Overall, the style is more accurately attributed to Contemporary Craftsman emphasized by use of its materials, colors and front porch articulation.

Roofs introduce gabled forms consistent with Craftsman references, but roof pitches are moderate and simplified with limited overhang depth. Although windows are generally vertically proportioned, they lack divided lites or expressive trim; frames remain black and contemporary in appearance. Entry doors are conventional and understated with limited use of sidelites, transoms, or heavy trim typical of Craftsman homes. The proposed style is generally strong in its selection of board-and-batten siding, masonry veneer, and stucco that provide material variation. However, material transitions are generally vertical rather than layered. Like other styles in the Project, wall-mounted utilities avoid the primary façade, but in some cases may be exposed to public view if not property screened by the return of a property line wall or plant screening. The proposed Craftsman style also exhibits strength in its front porch design that help establish a pedestrian-oriented façade and are proportioned to be functional but are relatively shallow limiting their visual dominance.

Farmhouse Architectural Style
Massing and forms are simple and rectangular with strong primary roof forms. Gabled roofs are clear and legible, aligning well with Farmhouse styles. Although the proposed style is larger than historic farmhouses, scale is moderated through clear roof geometry, strong horizontal siding patterns, and front porch elements. Articulation in the design is straightforward and expressed through board-and-batten siding, covered porches, and simple window groupings. Minimal use of ornamentation is a contemporary expression of the proposed Farmhouse style.

The proposed Farmhouse is well-expressed through its gabled roof forms with simple geometry that are consistent with other Farmhouse typologies. Windows are vertically oriented, evenly spaced, and placed within dark frames that reinforce the contemporary expression. Entry doors are straightforward, often Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 16 of 23 ends

430628.1
emphasized through porch placement rather than ornamentation. Board-and-batten in the dominant exterior siding material that effectively conveys the farmhouse character. As with other styles reviewed, wall-mounted utilities have the same vulnerabilities unless properly screened in similar fashion as previously described. Front porches are clearly defined, integral to the façade, and include columns that provide human scale and visual relief from larger masses.

Overall
Specific Plan Section 5.5.2(b) limits the same elevation in the same floor plan from being repeated on any given street, except Street “A.” Staff determined that usage of a mirrored building elevation on the same street as its non-mirrored version does not result in noncompliance with this design standard.

However, according to the site plan submitted with DRP 25-02, homes on the west side of Sunnyside Avenue include a repeat of Plan 3D’s building elevation, which occur on Lot 1 and Lot 9. Through discussions between the Applicant and City staff, City staff preferred Lot 1 to remain non-mirrored as presented to avoid presenting its garage as the first feature seen upon entering the neighborhood, and thus City staff requested that Lot 9 be mirrored to ensure compliance with Specific Plan Section 5.5.2(b).

In response, the Applicant stated issues related to grading, as related to the location and slope of the driveway, would occur as a result of mirroring the building elevation of Lot 9 and further stated a commitment to differentiate the two building elevations through application of materials and color. The two lots are separated by a horizontal distance of 582.5 feet and a vertical distance of 63 feet.

Furthermore, due to the meandering shape of Sunnyside Avenue shown in the Project site plan, Lot 9 would be mostly visually obstructed at the entrance of the subdivision. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss potential solutions with the Applicant. If the Planning Commission sustain the issue of compliance, they may consider the following non-exhaustive options: (a) continue the application and ask the applicant to revise the Project design in a manner consistent with the Specific Plan; or (b) include a condition to the approval of this Project that ensures the development’s consistency with the Specific Plan.

Specific Plan Section 5.5.9 establishes design standards and guidelines for balconies, porches and porticos. Patios, when including a supported structural cover of some kind, are features of a home similar to porches. Although the Specific Plan doesn’t expressly provide design standards or guidelines for patio design, the standards and guidelines that apply to porch design are within reason to apply. The architectural plans presented in DRP 25-02 include optional amenities. These options are presented alongside floor plans for each style; most options have no effect on the exterior of the home, but there are several options that provide outdoor living options. The outdoor living options are also represented on side and rear building elevations. However, City staff identified that the outdoor living options represented in the building elevations do not accurately represent the design shown in options of the floor plan. Specifically, the outdoor living options represented in building floor plans call for an exterior fireplace or outdoor cooking area fixed within a framed wing wall extending from, and thus attached to, the building’s side wall at either back corner of the building. Yet, side and rear building elevations presented what appeared to be a single-selected self-supported metal structure on posts abutting the Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 17 of 23 ends

430628.1
back of each building1. A manufacturer’s brochure provides additional details regarding this metal structure, on architectural plan sheet AD-1.3, that it would include mechanically louvered cover adequate to provide shelter from rainfall; such a roof is not compatible to enable a habitable structure without substantial structural alteration. The Specific Plan includes, within Appendix 5A, guidelines relevant to the design of porches, which as mentioned above, are within reason to apply to patios; photographs are provided alongside these guidelines to illustrate good and bad examples of guideline implementation.

Style A Style B Style C Style D
Modern Spanish Craftsman Farmhouse
Not common but not prohibited; either
open or roofed.

Porches are uncommon or
recessed behind an arcade.

Full or partial width porches;
Gable or shed roof over porch;
Square or tapered wood
supports.

Wide porches with, or
without, bracketed
posts; simple wood
railings.

Furthermore, a single selected exterior fireplace appears to have been applied to all floor plans and styles as shown by their side and rear building elevations. The Strategic Plan does not contemplate exterior fireplaces other than by permitting one to project up to 24 inches within a minimum required yard setback However, the Specific Plan includes, in Section 5.5.6, a standard related to chimneys requiring that their material and elements be consistent with the selected architectural style and integrated into the roof line.

During the review of the second Project design iteration (submitted October 2, 2025), City staff discussed with the Applicant concerns regarding then taller and disproportionate building mass exhibited at the rear of multiple Floor Plans and Styles. City staff suggested a possibility to relieve the appearance of tall and disproportionate building mass through an indoor-outdoor transition to patio or deck space which may include structures covering no more than 50% of their area provided their design and material be consistent with their attached architectural style. The applicant responded to the concern of tall and disproportionate volume by making reductions to the heights of top plates and rooflines and closing excessive fenestration but expressed that designing patio or raised deck area would overly complicate the grading design. On January 8, 2026, the applicant further revised the patio structure with post and frame clad in siding material consistent with the attached architectural design and incorporating a Knotwood product, an aluminum material with wood-like appearance, or similar, for an overhead trellis structure instead of a mechanically louvered cover.
1 For Plan 1, refer to architectural plan sheets A1-1.0, A1-1.2, A1-1.4, A1-1.6 for floor plans and A1-2.0 through A1-

3.3 for building elevations. For Plan 2, refer to architectural plan sheets A2-1.0, A2-1.2, A2-1.4, A2-1.6 for floor plans and A2-2.0 through A2-3.3 for building elevations. For Plan 3, refer to architectural plan sheets A3-1.0, A3-

1.2, A3-1.4, A3-1.6 and A3-2.0 through A3-3.3.

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 18 of 23 ends

430628.1
To further ensure the Project’s design remains consistent with all Specific Plan design standards and employs design guidelines to the maximum extent feasible, City staff recommend the design review permit include the following conditions:
 Materials, Colors, and Paint: Exterior cladding materials shall be limited to the approved materials for each style as shown on the approved plans, with no more than two major wall materials per façade. Final color selections shall be non‐reflective and complementary as approved. All exposed metal fixtures shall be painted or finished to match the wall or trim color to the extent permitted by public utility providers. Materials changes shall occur at inside corners or clear visual breaks per Specific Plan §5.5.7(e–f).
 Mechanical and Utility Screening: All mechanical equipment (condensers, pool heaters, etc.) shall be screened from view by walls or plantings. Utility meters and outlet panels shall be grouped and painted to blend with adjacent surfaces. Gutters, downspouts, and scuppers shall be integrated into the architecture and painted to match the building.  Porch and Balcony Details: Covered entries and balconies shall be incorporated on street‐facing elevations as shown; columns or pergolas must appear structurally supportive (no two‐story faux columns). Porch depths and balcony setbacks shall meet or exceed the minimum dimensions in Specific Plan §5.5.9 to ensure pedestrian‐friendly facades.

ANALYSIS – FINDINGS
Per Section 6.2.2 of the Specific Plan, the proposed development is subject to the City’s Design Review process pursuant to SMMC §17.60.041. Before a design review permit is granted, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings of fact based on the evidence reviewed by City staff.

1. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, zoning code and any applicable design standards.

The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Zoning Code, and all applicable design standards, including the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan and its adopted architectural design guidelines. The Specific Plan establishes the zoning and design guidelines for the site, including the requirement that each home’s style be selected from one of four approved styles. Conditions of Approval nos. 2.4.2 through 2.4.4 ensure that development of the Project remains consistent with the design standards of the Specific Plan. The Project’s park improvements and landscaping adhere to the development and design standards of the Specific Plan and are uses permitted by and consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Condition of Approval no. 2.4.1 ensures that the Project’s landscaping remain consistent with the development and design standards of the Specific Plan and comply with the Sierra Madre Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Therefore, the Project satisfies all applicable land‐use, development, and design requirements established in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan and its design guidelines.

For architecture, the Project adheres to the Specific Plan’s design standards and the intent of the City’s design review criteria through the following characteristics:
• Building Mass, Form, Scale, and Articulation. The Specific Plan requires that building mass and form be consistent with the chosen architectural style. Each house design employs forms and roof Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 19 of 23 ends

430628.1
heights appropriate to its style, and no two adjacent homes use identical façades. Roof massing is varied through parapets, hips, and gables, and most elevations break up larger volumes into smaller components. Primary façades include articulation and fenestration to avoid monotony; many homes incorporate second‐story setbacks, intermediate roof offsets, and wall plane changes. These design strategies fulfill the Specific Plan’s articulation requirements of applying multiple listed techniques per façade, while oversized or disproportional elements such as two‐ story faux columns are generally avoided.
• Roof Treatment. Roof forms vary within each architectural style and are articulated with changes in height, slope direction, and multiple roof planes. For example, Modern homes use flat roofs with parapets and clerestory bands; Craftsman homes have low gabled roofs; Spanish homes employ low hip roofs; and Farmhouse homes feature front gables with overhanging eaves.

Materials including cementitious wood shakes, standing-seam metal, and concrete tile are matched to each style, with eave lines, fascia, and dormers applied consistently on all elevations.

Collectively, these roof design elements provide variation and interest and reinforce separation of masses, consistent with the Specific Plan’s roof design standards. • Windows and Doors. Window placement and proportions have been tailored to each style, with frames, shutters, and hardware proportionate and consistent across all elevations. The plans contain balanced window groupings and sizes appropriate to the style. Primary entry doors are prominent on front façades and typically sheltered by porches or overhangs. Door surrounds and hardware reflect the selected style, and entry openings are scaled to the building, avoiding oversized portals. These treatments fulfill the Specific Plan’s standards for balanced and styleappropriate window and door design. • Exterior Materials and Colors. The Project’s material palette follows the guideline limiting façades to no more than two primary materials per façade. Wall claddings include stucco, wood or fibercement lap siding, stone veneer, and board-and-batten siding, with trim and accents in complementary colors. No prohibited materials such as plain plywood, corrugated metal, or reflective surfaces are used. Color palettes are subdued and appropriate to each style. All finishes are non-reflective and durable, and transitions in materials generally occur at inside corners or changes in plane, consistent with design guidelines. The selected materials and colors are compatible with both the individual home styles and the neighborhood context. • Utilities and Equipment. Visible mechanical equipment and utility fixtures have been designed to minimize visual impact, in accordance with the Specific Plan. Mechanical equipment, meters, and similar items are located in side or rear yards where feasible or are screened with enclosures or landscaping. All exposed conduit, outlets, and hardware are finished to blend with adjacent wall colors. Gutters and downspouts are integrated with trim elements and are painted to match building colors to avoid a visually “tacked on” appearance. These measures satisfy the Specific Plan’s requirements for utility integration and screening. • Balconies, Porches, and Porticos. Covered entries, porches, or balconies are incorporated consistent with each architectural style and are scaled appropriately to the building mass.

Craftsman homes include tapered columns on stone bases; Farmhouse homes have simple square posts and open porches; and Modern homes use flat metal canopies. Porch and balcony elements Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 20 of 23 ends

430628.1
are integrated into façades through roof overhangs and railings, providing articulation and contributing to a pedestrian-oriented streetscape in accordance with design standards.

2. The proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the use, possession and enjoyment of surrounding and adjacent properties.

3. The height, bulk, scale, mass and siting of the proposed project is compatible with the existing neighborhood, landforms and surroundings.

The spacing of buildings, varied rooflines, and modest floor‐to‐floor heights help the Project reflect the scale of Sierra Madre’s neighborhoods. No building is so large or tall as to visually dominate the site or the skyline; thus the project “does not visually overpower or dominate the neighborhood.”

5. The proposed project neither unreasonably interferes with public views or the views and privacy of neighbors, produces unreasonable noise levels, nor causes material adverse impacts.

Page 21 of 23 ends

430628.1
lighting impacts beyond standard residential use, which are mitigated through strategic placement of structural or plant screening techniques.

Although the development includes multiple styles, it exhibits a unified, “coherent project‐wide” design. The Specific Plan expressly encourages a “diversity of design, styles, and character” while requiring that each home on its lot adhere to one of the approved styles. Consistent with Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, each floor plan is offered in several style options (e.g. Plan 1A Modern, 1B Spanish, etc.), and each style is applied consistently on each individual home’s elevations. Common features such as similar porch depths, column profiles, and material palettes (e.g. use of painted wood trim and stucco or siding) tie the neighborhoods together. The grid layout and uniform setbacks further harmonize the varied architecture. Thus, the mix of Contemporary Modern, Spanish, Craftsman and Farmhouse homes is compatible with itself and with the adjacent retreat center and neighborhoods, as the Specific Plan envisions.

The project is not seeking additional height beyond standards, but each style is represented faithfully per Specific development and design standards and guidelines. All elevations of each home use consistent details appropriate to the style. For example, Spanish Revival homes feature stucco walls and low‐pitched clay tile roofs; Craftsman homes have gabled porches, tapered wood columns, and horizontal lap siding; Farmhouse homes show board‐and‐batten or clapboard siding with simple gables; and Modern homes use streamlined forms, flat or shallow roofs, and large fixed windows.

These elements implement the character‐defining features of each style. Thus, the project “adheres to the norms” of the selected styles and carries them through on all elevations.

8. For proposed projects that require discretionary review due to exceeding size thresholds (pursuant to subsections 17.20.027(C), 17.30.045(B), 17.28.070(A)1 or similar), that the proposed is a superior project that would enhance its neighborhood and exhibit exceptional design through a combination of most, if not all, of the following:

This finding does not apply because the Project does not exceed any size threshold established by the Specific Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption (Class 3), pursuant to Section 15182(c) - Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1, 1980, a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformity to that specific plan is exempt from CEQA if the project meets the requirements of this section.

Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 22 of 23 ends

430628.1
The residential projects including land subdivisions and residential planned unit developments that are undertaken consistent with the Specific Plan are exempt from CEQA, regardless of their location.

However, the exemption requires review to ensure that the project would not create any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously disclosed in the original environmental document, as described in Guidelines §15162.

On September 27, 2022, pursuant to 14 Cal. Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15090, the City Council certified that the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan Final Environmental Report (Final EIR) was completed in compliance with CEQA. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and 14 CCR Section 15091(a), findings, accompanying mitigation measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program were also approved and adopted by the City.

State law requires the preparation of an EIR for projects that have the potential for environmental impacts. Public Resources Code Section 21002 requires that an EIR identify the significant effects of a project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid these effects.

The EIR evaluates the environmental effects associated with the development of the project and discusses the manner in which the project's significant effects can be reduced or avoided through the implementation of mitigation measures or feasible alternatives to the proposed project. DRP 25-02 is a project that is consistent with and implements the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan. Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15182, projects consistent with an adopted specific plan are exempt from CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Notice of this hearing was delivered by first class mail to property owners within three thousand feet of the boundaries of the subject property in addition to the posting of a sign, providing notice of the hearing, at the entrances of the Meadows at Bailey Canyon development site. Additionally, notice of the hearing was included in the January edition of the Village View Newsletter. Copies of this report can be accessed on the City’s website at www.SierraMadreCA.gov.

Approved by:
___________________________
Clare Lin
Director of Planning & Community Preservation
Design Review Permit (DRP 25-02)
January 15, 2026

Page 23 of 23 ends

430628.1
Attachment(s):

A. Planning Commission Resolution 26-01
B. Consistency Review Matrix
C. Project Site Plans, Materials, and Colors
D. The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan

ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Resolution 26-01
1 430392.1

PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 26-01

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 22-58, certifing the Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was completed in compliance with CEQA, approved General Plan Land Use Map Amendment to Residential Low Density; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1461 approving Zoning Map Amendment to Residential Single Family, The Meadows at Bailey Canyon Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”), and the Development Agreement at 700 North Sunnyside Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 22-01, including Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 83966, was approved by City Council on February 27, 2024, granting the subdivision of a 17-acre site to 42 single-family residential lots, 6 open space lots, and one city public park and providing approximately 3.68 acres of land as dedicated public right-of-way.

WHEREAS, an application for a Design Review Permit was filed by:

WHEREAS, the new applicant for purposes of this Design Review Permit is:

Toll West Coast LLC
1140 Virginia Road
Fort Washington, PA 19034
2 430392.1
WHEREAS, the Design Review Permit can be described as: