Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Gabriel council continues Valley Boulevard plan debate, sets Oct. 1 public hearing
Summary
Council heard staff presentation on a proposed amendment to the Valley Boulevard Specific Plan to allow limited ground-floor office uses and establish a 40‑unit/acre minimum density; after extended questions about office ratios and grandfathering, the council voted to continue the public hearing to Oct. 1 for revised language and public review.
Planning staff presented an amendment to the Valley Boulevard Specific Plan that would allow limited ground-floor office uses in zones that currently restrict offices to the second floor and set minimum densities for mixed‑use areas.
Planning Manager Samantha told the council the draft ordinance (SPA 24‑001) responds to market shifts and would apply to specific mixed‑use zones. The proposal includes a numeric cap for ground‑floor office units per shopping center (a staff example scale tied to center size) and a minimum density of 40 units per acre to implement the city’s Housing Element Program 12. Samantha said the Planning Commission had voted 3–1 to recommend modifications that remove some limitations but retain the proposed office‑unit counts, and staff brought the proposal forward for council direction.
Councilmembers pressed staff on multiple fronts: whether to use a percentage or fixed counts for office units, how existing ground‑floor offices would be treated, and whether the minimum density would force housing where commercial uses remain preferred. Councilmember Harrington asked why the draft used a 1‑to‑10 bracket instead of smaller increments; several members proposed breaking ranges into 1–5, 6–10, 11–15 to avoid letting office space dominate small centers. Samantha clarified existing ground‑floor office uses would be counted toward the center total rather than being separately grandfathered.
City attorney and staff cautioned that substantial language changes after first reading would require re‑publishing for public review. To allow staff time to incorporate the council’s preferred scale and to present revised ordinance language for public inspection, the council voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to Oct. 1. The second reading and adoption will be scheduled at a later regular meeting, and any adopted ordinance would become effective 30 days after adoption.
The council’s next formal opportunity to take action on the amendment will be the continued hearing on Oct. 1, when staff will return with revised ordinance language and any additional public comment gathered in the interim.
