Baldwin Park planning commission directs staff to pursue denial of Bassett Villas proposal amid open-space and traffic concerns

The Baldwin Park Planning Commission on July 22 voted to ask staff to prepare a resolution of denial for a proposed 104-unit townhouse project on the Florence E. Flanner school parcel, after a daylong presentation by staff and the applicant and more than three hours of public testimony.

Planning staff summarized the proposal as a two‑story, 104‑unit townhouse development on a 5.22‑acre Bassett Unified School District parcel at 1314 Lebourn Avenue that would require a general plan amendment (open space to high‑density residential), a zoning change, a variance to reduce private open space, an administrative adjustment for building length and design review, and adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA. Staff recommended the commission forward Resolution PC 2607 and the IS/MND to the city council for adoption, noting the applicant had agreed to several off‑site improvements including paying for a traffic signal and to maintain a pocket park as a public amenity for the lease term, a condition staff said would be added to the recommendation.

Bassett Unified Superintendent Anthony Ortiz told the commission the district faces long‑term declining enrollment and is exploring options to generate revenue. "This will support current educational programs, fund new ones and help maintain and update our facilities," Ortiz said, urging the commission to consider the financial benefits to the district.

Developer representatives from Storm Properties said they revised the design from three to two stories, conducted neighborhood outreach and pledged to provide a publicly accessible pocket park and off‑site traffic signal. Jay Aluwalia, the developer’s president, said canvassing and outreach produced "77% support" in their engagement efforts and that the project would generate roughly $2.3 million in development and impact fees to the city.

Opponents disputed those claims and raised a wide range of concerns. Dozens of residents urged the commission not to convert one of the area’s few large public parcels into market‑rate housing, warned of narrow local streets and limited emergency access, questioned the outreach methods, and pressed for a full Environmental Impact Report rather than an MND. Attorney Steve Leonard, representing a community group, cited outstanding technical questions and said the Department of Toxic Substances Control had requested further soil testing, arguing that the IS/MND did not adequately analyze potential contamination or public‑health risks.

Planning staff and the project’s environmental consultant with Rincon Consultants defended the IS/MND process. Rincon said it had examined 20 resource areas, identified construction‑period impacts that can be mitigated (air quality, tribal monitoring, paleontological monitoring, dust controls and standard measures), and found no significant unavoidable operational impacts that would require an EIR. "We did not find any significant and unavoidable impacts," the consultant said, explaining that where potential impacts were identified they were reduced to less‑than‑significant levels through mitigation measures.

Commission questions clustered on three issues: the large reduction in private open space (staff said the project proposes 10,000 square feet where 20,800 is required under current code), the potential for setting a precedent by granting a major variance, and neighborhood traffic and emergency‑vehicle access. Commissioners also discussed RHNA — the state housing allocation — and whether the proposal meaningfully advances Baldwin Park’s housing obligations.

Several commissioners expressed particular unease with granting a variance that reduces private open space by roughly half and with the possibility the commission would create a precedent for future projects. After deliberation commissioners considered two procedural options: continuing the item to September to revisit the variance when a pending state ordinance would lower the open‑space requirement, or directing staff to prepare a formal denial. A substitute motion to continue the item to September 9 and return with specific conditions for the pocket park failed to achieve a majority.

The commission then passed a motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of Resolution PC 2607 and the IS/MND and to place that denial on a future planning commission consent calendar. On the roll call related to the denial direction, Commissioners Rodriguez, Arias, Peña and Vice Chair Miranda DeVille voted in favor and Chair Escobosa voted against (4–1). Planning staff clarified that the item was not yet a final denial; the commission’s direction requires staff to draft a denial resolution for the commission’s consent agenda at a future hearing, which would trigger appeal rights and further procedural steps.

Next steps: staff will draft the denial resolution per the commission’s direction; any formal denial will be noticed and placed on a future agenda and the applicant may appeal the commission’s action to city council. The commission also instructed staff to include clear, enforceable conditions if any pocket park is to be required as part of future approvals, including hours and maintenance obligations.

Action on the main item is pending the commission’s formal consideration of the drafted denial resolution; the planning commission’s direction on July 22 stops short of a final, appealable denial until the resolution is returned and acted upon on a later agenda.