Friday, October 23, 2026

Pasadena School Board Approves Linda Vista Negotiating Agreement With $500,000 in Developer Deposits

The upfront money is half the $1 million a District negotiator called the original request; the negotiator cited reasons including uncertainty over city approvals and the effect of keeping the park in place

Pasadena Unified School District trustees on Thursday approved an exclusive negotiating agreement under which the prospective developer of the former Linda Vista Elementary School site would put up $500,000 in deposits, half the $1 million that a member of the District’s negotiating team described as “the original ask.”

The agreement is with CWL Development Company LLC, the entity InSite Realty Advisors formed for the project and fully owns. It gives the developer an exclusive period to study the property at 1259 Linda Vista Ave., conduct community outreach, pursue city review and negotiate a possible ground lease.

It does not approve a project. Any final ground lease or project agreement will return to the Board for consideration and approval, the District said.

The deposit terms differ from those in front of trustees when they selected InSite as the preferred developer on June 25. InSite’s best and final offer, submitted in May, proposed about 32 single-family rental homes, $575,000 a year in ground rent, a 90-day feasibility period and $1 million.

Under the agreement, the developer must deposit $250,000 into escrow within 10 business days after the agreement takes effect and another $250,000 after due diligence milestones are met. Both deposits become nonrefundable at milestones the agreement defines. A presenter said the District would receive the first deposit for use after 270 days, once the developer meets conditions including a notice to proceed and a schedule of performance.

The developer has 270 days after the effective date to complete due diligence and decide whether to proceed with the city entitlement process. The exclusive term runs 12 months, with up to two six-month extensions at $50,000 each. The developer would also reimburse the District $50,000 in consultant costs, the District said.

Trustee Kimberly Kenne asked whether the two $250,000 payments were part of the $1 million she recalled the District seeking.

“That was the original ask, but it was negotiated down to a lower amount for a variety of reasons, including not knowing what the city would approve or disapprove and the yield based on keeping the park in its current position,” the negotiating team member said.

The deposits would apply toward rent, the team member said, adding that the start date is “going to be negotiated during this year.”

District staff told Kenne that the District’s own expenses for the process, including legal fees, are being paid from the general fund. Asked for a cost estimate, staff said, “We don’t have an estimate yet, no.”

Trustees earlier directed that the park on the site keep its existing location and size. The agreement includes that provision, along with a requirement for District review and written approval of the project design and a District-approved community outreach plan.

Asked whether keeping the park in place would reduce the District’s revenue, the team member said the developer must first study the site’s yield and physical conditions: “So the bottom line is it’s too early to know.”

Willem Swârt, who identified himself as a local architect, urban designer and son-in-law of a longtime Linda Vista Avenue resident, said he understood the action “is not a project approval,” but urged the Board to “build trust and listen to the community.”

Another speaker argued that a section of the state Education Code bars the arrangement because “no educational activity is involved,” and asked the District to roll back the procurement process. No trustee or District representative addressed that argument before the vote.

A third speaker, speaking as a resident, called approval “premature” and asked for a community meeting and a completed traffic study presented to residents before any agreement is signed.

Trustee Michelle Richardson Bailey said residents had frequently brought the property to the Board’s facilities committee. “However, this project is totally different from what they said they were interested in seeing done with that property,” she said.

Trustee Yarma Velázquez said she attended a meeting of more than 120 Linda Vista neighbors about two years ago and that residents’ comments have been answered. She said the project would contribute to District finances but would not solve all of its financial problems.

Velázquez moved to approve the agreement and Trustee Scott Harden seconded. The motion passed on a roll-call vote.

The next steps are due diligence and community engagement, refinement of the proposed project, city planning, zoning and environmental review, ground lease negotiation if the project remains feasible, and a future Board vote on a final ground lease or project agreement.