San Gabriel council approves Rubio Village mixed‑use project after court‑ordered environmental review

The San Gabriel City Council voted 4–0 on Tuesday to adopt a revised mitigated negative declaration and introduce an ordinance to readopt plan development overlay approvals for the Rubio Village mixed‑use project at 201–217 South San Gabriel Boulevard, a site that straddles the Rubio Wash.

Assistant community development director Samantha Tuizard told the council the project site is approximately 2.8 acres (not including the Rubio Wash). The entitlement history dates to 2007; the proposal before the council preserves the mixed‑use design presented in 2023–24 but increases the number of residential units from 179 to 225 by subdividing some three‑bedroom units into studios and one‑bedroom units. The approved increase raised the number of affordable units from 18 to 22, including six units designated low‑income. The proposal includes ground‑floor commercial/restaurant space, five levels of residential above, common open space and an on‑site community park, and a tentative tract map (No. 73153) required for condominium portions of the project.

The project’s environmental review was reopened after a court challenge. Tuizard said the court ordered the city to set aside the earlier mitigated negative declaration and January 2024 approvals and to perform additional environmental analysis addressing deficiencies identified for biological resources and health risk assessment. The city’s consultant prepared a revised initial study and mitigated negative declaration (MND) that added field reconnaissance, database searches and quantitative health‑risk modeling. The revised study concludes impacts to biological resources can be avoided or reduced to less‑than‑significant levels with mitigation, and that quantitative health‑risk results for carcinogenic exposures are less than significant without additional mitigation. The revised MND was available for public review from Sept. 3, 2025, through Oct. 22, 2025; staff said they received one comment letter and provided responses to council members.

Christy Garcia, attorney for Rubio Village LLC, urged the council to adopt the staff recommendation, saying the developer and city “have done exactly what was required by the court to ensure the revised initial study and mitigated negative declaration passed legal muster and that an EIR is not necessary in this case.” Garcia asked the council to adopt Resolution 25‑39 and introduce Ordinance No. 723.

Opponents including Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), represented by attorney Haley Uno of Lozo Jury LLP, asked the council to require a full environmental impact report. Uno said wildlife ecologist Dr. Sean Smallwood documented at least seven special‑status species using the site or nearby wash — including Allen’s hummingbird, American kestrel and silver‑haired bat — and argued the project could result in habitat loss, disruption of wildlife movement and increased bird window collisions given the proposed building heights. Uno said those findings raised a “fair argument” that an EIR is required.

Tuizard told the council the city’s environmental consultant Kim Lehi & Associates and biologists from Rocks Biological Consulting were present to answer questions. After brief council discussion and no additional public speakers, a council member moved to approve the staff recommendation; the motion passed by a vote of 4–0 with Council member Wu absent. The motion covered adoption of Resolution 25‑39 approving the revised mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and introduction (by title only) of Ordinance No. 723 to repeal and readopt the amended plan development overlay; the ordinance is scheduled for second reading and adoption at the next regular council meeting and would become effective 30 days after adoption.

The council directed no additional environmental action at the meeting and did not vote to prepare an EIR. Consultants and parties present may pursue further administrative or legal remedies outside the meeting record.