Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Monrovia council certifies EIR and approves entitlements for 701 South Myrtle; ordinance introduced
Loading...
Summary
The council certified the final EIR and approved a general plan amendment, specific plan (PD‑29) and related entitlements for 701 South Myrtle, enabling a five‑story, 204‑unit mixed‑use project with a minimum affordable housing set‑aside; the zoning ordinance was introduced for final adoption at the next meeting.
Mayor Shevlin on Dec. 2 presided over a public hearing that ended with the City Council certifying an environmental impact report and approving entitlements for the 701 South Myrtle specific plan, a 1.61‑acre, five‑story infill project expected to include 204 rental units and ground‑floor commercial space.
Planning Division Manager John Meyer told the council the proposal led to creation of a new planned development designation (PD‑29) and a specific plan to control design and ensure required public‑realm improvements. Under PD‑29 the site’s base density could rise to 105 units per acre only when paired with the specific plan and the affordability requirement. Meyer said the project would provide a minimum of 10% of units for low‑income households plus three additional moderate‑income units and would be limited to a maximum 65‑foot height and five stories.
On environmental review, staff and the city’s CEQA consultant said the draft EIR was circulated for public review and that the final EIR concluded mitigation would reduce identified impacts to less‑than‑significant levels. Staff noted one minor clarification in the mitigation monitoring program (MM2C) specifying the type of temporary noise barrier to be used during construction. The Planning Commission had previously recommended unanimous approval of the entitlements.
Speakers at the public hearing were sharply divided. Chase Preciado, counsel for Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), urged the council to send the EIR back to staff, saying the draft lacked a quantified health risk assessment for diesel particulate emissions and alleging construction‑noise modeling errors; he said a screening analysis retained by SAFER showed an infant cancer risk of “86 in 1,000,000” absent further mitigation. Dale Goldsmith, CEQA counsel for the applicant, countered that SAFER’s screening model overstated impacts, that South Coast AQMD guidance did not require a construction HRA for short‑term construction emissions, and that the applicant’s refined HRA using EPA‑preferred AirMod and a supplemental noise analysis showed impacts below significance thresholds.
Residents who spoke at the hearing raised concerns about tree removal, loss of downtown character, and construction impacts. Rosemary Gavidia and other speakers warned the removal of mature canopy trees would worsen heat, habitat and wildfire risks; they urged redesign or stronger mitigation and said alternatives that preserve mature trees should be considered.
Developer representatives from Blake Griggs Properties described prior local projects and said the team had modified the design in response to community feedback. John Meyer and staff emphasized that the specific plan contains design standards that cannot be waived and that final landscape plans will return to the Development Review Committee for coordinated review.
A motion to adopt a series of resolutions (certifying the EIR; approving the general plan amendment and PD‑29; approving the specific plan, tentative parcel map and conditional use permit) and to introduce Ordinance No. 2025‑12 (zoning map amendment to SP for 701 South Myrtle) was made, seconded and approved unanimously on a roll call vote. Staff said the ordinance will come back for formal adoption at the council’s next meeting.
Councilmembers framed their votes between two competing priorities: the need for more local affordable housing and concerns about scale, tree canopy and historic context. One councilmember cited the increase from the site’s by‑right capacity of roughly 54 units to the proposed 204 units as a reason for deliberation; others praised the project’s contribution of on‑site affordable units and the city’s effort to retain design control through the specific plan.
Next steps: the introduced ordinance will be returned for adoption at a future meeting; staff and the developer are to continue collaborating on landscaping and other design concessions before construction permits are issued.
